On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 5:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > Yeah, this sounds clear but shall we consider using
> > max_retention_duration like: "Retention is re-enabled because the
> > apply process has caught up with the publisher within the configured
> > max_retention_duration.". We can have a single message if we don't
> > want to specify the value of max_retention_duration or simply skip
> > adding max_retention_duration.
>
> That wording sounds good to me. I think you could leave out
> the mention of max_retention_duration, but I won't fight if
> people prefer to include it.
>
We have a similar message for stop retention. I feel it would be good
to mention that as a reason, so users can increase it. I could think
of two alternatives for stop message based on above suggestion:
"Retention is stopped because the apply process has not caught up with
the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration."
"Retention is stopped because the apply process could not catch up
with the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration."
Do you have any preference? The first one resembles a similar resume
message and second is probably what I would have used if there was no
corresponding resume message.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
