| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx(at)gmail(dot)com>, Shinya Kato <shinya11(dot)kato(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: enhance wraparound warnings |
| Date: | 2026-06-24 12:53:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwEO1CnzVr42rJULGgPg9=89N0rOwNDmWKmjMM_-PVHB4Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 24, 2026 at 1:47 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I happened to quickly review these patches.
Thanks for the review!
> TBH, "transaction ID
> space" and "MultiXactId space" seem a bit confusing because of the
> word "space" - it reads fine without it. Is there a specific reason
> for this wording?
I was thinking "space" was appropriate here because the message is intended
to express the percentage remaining before wraparound in the ID range.
The documentation also uses expressions such as "normal XID space is ...".
But I'm not a native English speaker, so this wording might be wrong.
> Also, why not use "multixact IDs" instead of "MultiXactId"? The latter
> reads like an internal structure name or such that might confuse users
> reading the docs or error messages.
I left "MultiXactId" unchanged because several existing log messages
use that term. I don't have any strong objection to changing it to
"multixact ID", which is already used in the documentation. However, if
we do that, I think it's better update all log messages that use
"MultiXactId" for consistency, probably as a separate patch. That seems
more like a v20 item to me, though.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | torikoshia | 2026-06-24 12:56:17 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-06-24 12:49:56 | Re: Get rid of "Section.N.N.N" on DOCs |