On Sat, Apr 8, 2023 at 9:31 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> On 2023-04-08 09:15:05 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > The new approach for invalidation looks clean. BTW, I see minor
> > inconsistency in the following two error messages (errmsg):
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
>
> > if (MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated == RS_INVAL_WAL)
> > ereport(ERROR,
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > errmsg("can no longer get changes from replication slot \"%s\"",
> > NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)),
> > errdetail("This slot has been invalidated because it exceeded the
> > maximum reserved size.")));
> >
> > if (MyReplicationSlot->data.invalidated != RS_INVAL_NONE)
> > ereport(ERROR,
> > (errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
> > errmsg("cannot read from logical replication slot \"%s\"",
> > NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)),
> > errdetail("This slot has been invalidated because it was conflicting
> > with recovery.")));
> >
> > Won't it be better to keep the same errmsg in the above two cases?
>
> Probably - do you have a preference? I think the former is a bit better?
>
+1 for the former.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.