Re: [HACKERS] the need to finish - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] the need to finish
Date
Msg-id 6843.1492010801@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] the need to finish  (Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] the need to finish  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Logical replication emits logmessages like these:
> DETAIL:  90 transactions need to finish.
> DETAIL:  87 transactions need to finish.
> DETAIL:  70 transactions need to finish.

> Could we get rid of that 'need'?   It strikes me as a bit off; something 
> that people would say but not a mechanical message by a computer. I 
> dislike it strongly.

> I would prefer the line to be more terse:

> DETAIL:  90 transactions to finish.

> Am I the only one who is annoyed by this phrase?

Our style guidelines say that detail messages should be complete
sentences, so I don't like your proposal too much.

Maybe "N transactions remain to finish." ?
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Some thoughts about SCRAM implementation
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GCC 7 warnings