> On Dec 9, 2025, at 19:39, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 11:50 AM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 9, 2025, at 14:12, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2025 at 11:23 AM Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I just searched and see similar messages:
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> logical replication parallel apply worker for subscription \"%s\" will stop because the subscription owner's
superuserprivileges have been revoked
>>>>
>>>> logical replication worker for subscription \"%s\" will restart because the subscription owner's superuser
privilegeshave been revoked
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>> I think the new phrase is better. Maybe “is triggered” could be “has been triggered”?
>>>>
>>>
>>> My AI tool says:
>>>
>>> Both options are grammatically correct, but the nuance differs:
>>> "will stop because promotion is triggered"
>>> This uses the present tense ("is triggered"), which suggests the
>>> promotion event is happening right now, concurrently with the stopping
>>> action.
>>> "will stop because promotion has been triggered"
>>> This uses the present perfect tense ("has been triggered"), which
>>> implies the promotion event already occurred and is the reason for the
>>> upcoming stop.
>>>
>>> In this case, because ShutDownSlotSync() will wait for the slotsync
>>> worker to exit, so the first one ("will stop because promotion is
>>> triggered") fits better.
>>>
>>
>> Make sense. Then Zhijie’s v2 looks good to me.
>>
>
> BTW, by mistake, I ended up pushing 0001 which I think in itself is
> not a bad idea. However, we can improve it at least in HEAD as part of
> patch[1] where we are making changes in the same part of code. Do you
> think that is okay?
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFPTHDYHjqq53f1Cbata2MrV2nRBDe6XgxXfqv4tw4rcT2-Y8Q%40mail.gmail.com
>
Sure, no problem. Thanks for taking care of my comment.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
