Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 2:06 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 5:41 PM Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 9:18 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > A minor comment on the 0001 patch: In the message I think that using
> > > > "ID" would look better than lowercase "id" and AFAICS it's more
> > > > consistent with existing messages.
> > > >
> > > > + appendStringInfo(&buf, _(" in transaction id %u with commit timestamp %s"),
> > > >
> > >
> > > You have a point but I think in this case it might look a bit odd as
> > > we have another field 'commit timestamp' after that which is
> > > lowercase.
> > >
> >
> > I did a quick search and I couldn't find any other messages in the
> > Postgres code that use "transaction id", but I could find some that
> > use "transaction ID" and "transaction identifier".
> >
>
> Okay, but that doesn't mean using it here is bad. I am personally fine
> with a message containing something like "... in transaction
> id 740 with commit timestamp 2021-08-10 14:44:38.058174+05:30" but I
> won't mind if you and or others find some other way convenient. Any
> opinion from others?
>

Just to be clear, all I was saying is that I thought using uppercase
"ID" looked better in the message, and was more consistent with
existing logged messages, than using lowercase "id".
i.e. my suggestion was a trivial change:

BEFORE:
+ appendStringInfo(&buf, _(" in transaction id %u with commit timestamp %s"),
AFTER:
+ appendStringInfo(&buf, _(" in transaction ID %u with commit timestamp %s"),

But it was just a suggestion. Maybe others feel differently.

Regards,
Greg Nancarrow
Fujitsu Australia