Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 8:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> BTW, before I forget: the wording of this log message is just awful.
>> [ so how about ]
>> "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?
Seems all right to me; do you have a better suggestion?
regards, tom lane
