At Wed, 28 Sep 2022 16:30:37 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in
> Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> > Okay. the points you brought up above are sufficient grounds for not
> > doing so. Now they are in the following format.
>
> > LOG: terminating process 16034 to release replication slot "rep1"
> > because its restart_lsn 0/3158000 exceeds the limit by 15368192 bytes
>
> This seems to me to be a pretty blatant violation of our first message
> style guideline [1]:
Thanks! It seems that I was waiting for a comment on that line. I
thought that way at first but finally returned to the current message
as the result of discussion (in my memory). I will happily make the
main message shorter.
> I think you should leave the primary message alone and add a DETAIL,
> as the first version of the patch did.
>
> The existing "invalidating slot" message is already in violation
> of this guideline, so splitting off a DETAIL from that seems
> indicated as well.
So I'm going to change the mssage as:
LOG: terminating process %d to release replication slot \"%s\"
DETAIL: The slot's restart_lsn %X/%X exceeds the limit by %lld bytes.
HINT: You might need to increase max_slot_wal_keep_size.
LOG: invalidating *replication* slot \"%s\"
DETAILS: (ditto)
HINTS: (ditto)
It seems that it's no longer useful to split out the first patch so I
merged them into one.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center