From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: outdated references to replication timeout |
Date: | 2021-01-13 01:37:19 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHu4kvuXDRTe7YkZMPZ-7uNkyGq4VHemOkwKLkFkn3azw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:39 AM John Naylor
<john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The parameter replication_timeout was retired in commit 6f60fdd701 back in 2012, but some comments and error messages seem to refer to that old setting instead of wal_sender_timeout or wal_receiver_timeout. The attached patch replaces the old language with more specific references.
Thanks for the patch! I think this change makes sense.
- (errmsg("terminating walsender process
due to replication timeout")));
+ (errmsg("terminating walsender process
due to WAL sender timeout")));
Isn't it a bit strange to include different expressions "walsender" and
"WAL sender" for the same thing in one message?
This is a bit related, but different topic, though. If we change the above
message about walsender timeout, I also want to change the message about
walreceiver timeout, so as to make them more consistent. For example,
- (errmsg("terminating walreceiver due to timeout")));
+ (errmsg("terminating WAL receiver process due to WAL receiver timeout")));
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-01-13 01:48:52 | Re: A failure of standby to follow timeline switch |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-01-13 01:35:14 | Re: Fix a typo in SearchCatCache function comment |