On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 9:13 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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?
>
> I think "has not" is clearer, or maybe you should say "did not catch
> up with..." Either way, that sounds like a pure statement of fact
> whereas "could not" has some overtones of assigning blame.
>
Thanks for your inputs. I've pushed after making discussed changes.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.