From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com, smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com, vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com, kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com, shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, euler(at)eulerto(dot)com, m(dot)melihmutlu(at)gmail(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
Date: | 2023-01-24 05:58:58 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KW2jcbadOmU8x806uzNFAasOpCEe6BX5WYoyK_sgYkTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 24, 2023 at 6:17 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> At Mon, 23 Jan 2023 17:36:13 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 6:12 PM Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)
> > <osumi(dot)takamichi(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Attached the updated patch v19.
> > Few comments:
> > 2.
> > + if (IsSet(supported_opts, SUBOPT_MIN_APPLY_DELAY) &&
> > + opts->min_apply_delay > 0 && opts->streaming == LOGICALREP_STREAM_PARALLEL)
> > + ereport(ERROR,
> > + errcode(ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR),
> > + errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
> > + "min_apply_delay > 0", "streaming = parallel"));
> > }
> >
> > I think here we should add a comment for the translator as we are
> > doing in some other nearby cases.
>
> IMHO "foo > bar" is not an "option". I think we say "foo and bar are
> mutually exclusive options" but I think don't say "foo = x and bar = y
> are.. options". I wrote a comment as "this should be more like
> human-speaking" and Euler seems having the same feeling for another
> error message.
>
> Concretely I would spell this as "min_apply_delay cannot be enabled
> when parallel streaming mode is enabled" or something.
>
We can change it but the current message seems to be in line with some
nearby messages like "slot_name = NONE and enabled = true are mutually
exclusive options". So, isn't it better to keep this as one in sync
with existing messages?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2023-01-24 06:15:36 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
Previous Message | Drouvot, Bertrand | 2023-01-24 05:20:20 | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |