Thread: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix various possible problems with synchronous replication.
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix various possible problems with synchronous replication.
From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> errmsg("canceling the wait for replication and terminating connection
> due to administrator command")
> errmsg("canceling wait for synchronous replication due to user request")
>
> Should that first one then also say "synchronous replication"?
I could go either way. Clearly if it's asynchronous replication, we
wouldn't be waiting. But you're certainly right that we should be
consistent.
> errdetail("The transaction has already been committed locally but
> might have not been replicated to the standby.")));
> errdetail("The transaction has committed locally, but may not have
> replicated to the standby.")));
>
> Could we have these saying precisely the same thing?
Yeah. Which is better?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix various possible problems with synchronous replication.
From
Thom Brown
Date:
On 17 March 2011 17:55, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> errdetail("The transaction has already been committed locally but
>> might have not been replicated to the standby.")));
>> errdetail("The transaction has committed locally, but may not have
>> replicated to the standby.")));
>>
>> Could we have these saying precisely the same thing?
>
> Yeah. Which is better?
Personally I prefer the 2nd. It reads better somehow.
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix various possible problems with synchronous replication.
From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
> On 17 March 2011 17:55, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>> errdetail("The transaction has already been committed locally but
>>> might have not been replicated to the standby.")));
>>> errdetail("The transaction has committed locally, but may not have
>>> replicated to the standby.")));
>>>
>>> Could we have these saying precisely the same thing?
>>
>> Yeah. Which is better?
>
> Personally I prefer the 2nd. It reads better somehow.
I hacked on this a bit more and ended up with a hybrid of the two.
Hope you like it; but anyway it's consistent.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix various possible problems with synchronous replication.
From
Thom Brown
Date:
On 18 March 2011 14:23, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> On 17 March 2011 17:55, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>>>> errdetail("The transaction has already been committed locally but
>>>> might have not been replicated to the standby.")));
>>>> errdetail("The transaction has committed locally, but may not have
>>>> replicated to the standby.")));
>>>>
>>>> Could we have these saying precisely the same thing?
>>>
>>> Yeah. Which is better?
>>
>> Personally I prefer the 2nd. It reads better somehow.
>
> I hacked on this a bit more and ended up with a hybrid of the two.
> Hope you like it; but anyway it's consistent.
Yes, cheers :)
--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company