On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 8:17 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I noticed that the recent commit 0d48d393d46 introduced the following
> three messages:
>
> 4793> errdetail("Retention is stopped as the apply process is not advancing its xmin within the configured
max_retention_durationof %u ms.",
> 4822> ? errdetail("Retention is re-enabled as the apply process is advancing its xmin within the configured
max_retention_durationof %u ms.",
> 4824> : errdetail("Retention is re-enabled as max_retention_duration is set to unlimited."));
>
> I think I saw other instances of this kind of as recently, and I
> thought we had agreed to avoid this usage and prefer because instead,
> but I lost track of where that discussion took place.
>
> Anyway, unlike some past uses, these ones are apparently confusing,
> and I'd like to propose changing the wording to because.
>
Thanks for pointing this out. I checked the code and found the use of
'because' is preferred.
> In addition, I felt that the tense in the second message is not
> immediately clear. If it is reasonable and keeps the correct sense,
> I'd like to propose changing "is (not) advancing its xmin within" to
> "has (not) advanced its xmin into".
>
> + errdetail("Retention is stopped because the apply process has not advanced its xmin into the configured
max_retention_durationof %u ms.",
> + ? errdetail("Retention is re-enabled because the apply process has advanced its xmin into the configured
max_retention_durationof %u ms.",
> + : errdetail("Retention is re-enabled because max_retention_duration is set to unlimited."));
>
In the above sentence, has advanced sounds like we have already
advanced but that is not the case. Also, use of into looks odd to me.
How about changing it to: "Retention is re-enabled because the apply
process can advance its xmin within the configured
max_retention_duration of %u ms."?
Similarly for the first message, how about: "Retention is stopped
because the apply process could not advance its xmin within the
configured max_retention_duration of %u ms."?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
