| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
| Date: | 2022-04-15 16:29:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzm-rZnt5fpgsaAngCDj+Gy6O4_Vxp9msQ_oD6UOLcqPpQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 8:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> BTW, before I forget: the wording of this log message is just awful.
> On first sight, I thought that it meant that we'd computed OldestXmin
> a second time and discovered that it advanced by 26 xids while the VACUUM
> was running.
> "removable cutoff: %u, which was %d xids old when operation ended\n"
How the output appears when placed right before the output describing
how VACUUM advanced relfrozenxid is an important consideration. I want
the format and wording that we use to imply a relationship between
these two things. Right now, that other line looks like this:
"new relfrozenxid: %u, which is %d xids ahead of previous value\n"
Do you think that this juxtaposition works well?
> Also, is it really our practice to spell XID in lower-case in
> user-facing messages?
There are examples of both. This could easily be changed to "XIDs".
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-15 16:36:52 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-04-15 16:22:41 | Re: Intermittent buildfarm failures on wrasse |