Re: Fix LOCK_TIMEOUT handling in slotsync worker - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Fix LOCK_TIMEOUT handling in slotsync worker
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+1zoOR+A5D9gFHAZBwo1pJU+OnS+AujDiXCNE=3fUGQA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fix LOCK_TIMEOUT handling in slotsync worker  (Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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superuserprivileges have been revoked 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privilegeshave been revoked 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.
>

Thanks for the review. Pushed.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: 64-bit wait_event and introduction of 32-bit wait_event_arg
Next
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: citext_1.out, citext.out confusing comment