On 13.07.23 11:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On 2023-Jul-13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I suppose we could just say "logical replication worker" in all cases. That
should be enough precision for the purpose of these messages.
Agreed. IMO the user doesn't care about specifics.
Ok, committed.
On 2023-Jul-13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I suppose we could just say "logical replication worker" in all cases. That
> should be enough precision for the purpose of these messages.
Agreed. IMO the user doesn't care about specifics.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E —
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 4:07 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 13.07.23 06:59, Peter Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:35 PM Peter Eisentraut
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 21.06.23 09:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >>> That is a terrible pattern in relatively new code. Let's get rid of it
>
On 13.07.23 06:59, Peter Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:35 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 21.06.23 09:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
That is a terrible pattern in relatively new code. Let's get rid of it
entirely rather than continue to propagate it.
So, I don't think it is fair to say
On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:35 PM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 21.06.23 09:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > That is a terrible pattern in relatively new code. Let's get rid of it
> > entirely rather than continue to propagate it.
> >
> >> So, I don't think it is fair to say that these format
On 21.06.23 09:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
That is a terrible pattern in relatively new code. Let's get rid of it
entirely rather than continue to propagate it.
So, I don't think it is fair to say that these format strings are OK
for the existing HEAD code, but not OK for the patch code, when
On 2023-Jun-21, Peter Smith wrote:
> Except, please note that there are already multiple message format
> strings in the HEAD code that look like "%s for subscription ...",
> that are using the get_worker_name() function for the name
> substitution.
>
> e.g.
> - "%s for subscription \"%s\" will
Re: Alvaro's comment [1] "From a translation standpoint, this doesn't
seem good".
Except, please note that there are already multiple message format
strings in the HEAD code that look like "%s for subscription ...",
that are using the get_worker_name() function for the name
substitution.
e.g.
-
At Thu, 15 Jun 2023 12:42:33 +1000, Peter Smith wrote
in
> It is better to have a *single* point where these worker names are
> defined, so then all output uses identical LR worker nomenclature.
>
> PSA a small patch to modify the code accordingly. This is not intended
> to be a functional
On 2023-Jun-15, Peter Smith wrote:
> PSA a small patch to modify the code accordingly. This is not intended
> to be a functional change - just a code cleanup.
>From a translation standpoint, this doesn't seem good. Consider this
proposed message:
"lost connection to the %s"
It's not possible
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 8:13 AM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> There are different types of Logical Replication workers -- e.g.
> tablesync workers, apply workers, and parallel apply workers.
>
> The logging and errors often name these worker types, but during a
> recent code review, I noticed some
Hi,
There are different types of Logical Replication workers -- e.g.
tablesync workers, apply workers, and parallel apply workers.
The logging and errors often name these worker types, but during a
recent code review, I noticed some inconsistency in the way this is
done:
a) there is a common
12 matches
Mail list logo
