| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: A recent message added to pg_upgade |
| Date: | 2024-01-11 23:37:49 |
| Message-ID: | ZaB7zRpi0oj_ucSl@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 10:01:16AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
>> "The logical replication launcher is disabled during binary upgrades, to
>> avoid logical replication workers running on the source cluster. That
>> would cause replication origins to move forward after having been copied
>> to the target cluster, potentially creating conflicts with the copied
>> data files."
>
> "avoid logical replication workers running" still seems like shaky
> grammar. Perhaps s/avoid/avoid having/, or write "to prevent logical
> replication workers from running ...".
After sleeping on it, your last suggestion sounds better to me, so
I've incorporated that with Alvaro's wording (also cleaner than what I
have posted), and applied the patch on HEAD.
> Also perhaps s/would/could/.
Yep.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melanie Plageman | 2024-01-11 23:41:52 | Re: Confine vacuum skip logic to lazy_scan_skip |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2024-01-11 23:36:33 | Re: Built-in CTYPE provider |