Обсуждение: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix various possible problems with synchronous replication.

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

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

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

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