From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reword messages using "as" instead of "because" |
Date: | 2025-09-19 05:50:35 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KP1mKJFUTQom_NLqRHdKjppJA6LQDD4r=C-zK3xMKpkw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 9:13 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > We have a similar message for stop retention. I feel it would be good
> > to mention that as a reason, so users can increase it. I could think
> > of two alternatives for stop message based on above suggestion:
> > "Retention is stopped because the apply process has not caught up with
> > the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration."
> > "Retention is stopped because the apply process could not catch up
> > with the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration."
>
> > Do you have any preference?
>
> I think "has not" is clearer, or maybe you should say "did not catch
> up with..." Either way, that sounds like a pure statement of fact
> whereas "could not" has some overtones of assigning blame.
>
Thanks for your inputs. I've pushed after making discussed changes.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | shveta malik | 2025-09-19 06:18:18 | Re: Report bytes and transactions actually sent downtream |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-09-19 05:27:46 | Re: Incorrect logic in XLogNeedsFlush() |