At Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:31:00 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> > At Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:30:37 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in
> > LOG: invalidating *replication* slot \"%s\"
> > DETAILS: (ditto)
> > HINTS: (ditto)
>
> I thought the latter was a little *too* short; the primary message
> should at least give you some clue why that happened, even if it
> doesn't offer all the detail. After some thought I changed it to
Yeah, agreed. It looks better. (I was about to spell it as
"invalidating slot "%s"" then changed my mind to add "replication". I
felt that it is a bit too short but didn't think about further
streaching that by adding "obsolete"..).
> LOG: invalidating obsolete replication slot \"%s\"
>
> and pushed it that way.
Thanks. And thanks for fixing the test script, too.
By the way, I didn't notice at that time (and forgot about the
policy), but the HINT message has variations differing only by the
variable name.
What do you think about the attached?
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
