On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:51 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> On 28.02.23 07:15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> >> Going through the remaining report_invalid_record() calls I then
> >> adjusted the use of "invalid" vs. "incorrect" in one case. The message
> >> "record with invalid length" makes it
On 28.02.23 07:15, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Going through the remaining report_invalid_record() calls I then
adjusted the use of "invalid" vs. "incorrect" in one case. The message
"record with invalid length" makes it sound like the length was
something like -5, but really we know what the
On 28.02.23 11:19, Jeevan Ladhe wrote:
+1 for the changes.
>1. Why is "wanted >=%u" any better than "wanted at least %u"? IMO, the
>wording as opposed to >= symbol in the user-facing messages works
>better.
I think I agree with Bharath on this: "wanted at least %u" sounds better
for user
+1 for the changes.
>1. Why is "wanted >=%u" any better than "wanted at least %u"? IMO, the
>wording as opposed to >= symbol in the user-facing messages works
>better.
I think I agree with Bharath on this: "wanted at least %u" sounds better
for user error than "wanted >=%u".
Regards,
Jeevan
On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 1:06 PM Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
>
> Here is a small patch to make some invalid-record error messages in
> xlogreader a bit more accurate (IMO).
+1 for these changes.
> My starting point was that when you have some invalid WAL, you often get
> a message like "wanted 24,
f3a596691b061 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2023 08:31:03 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Make some xlogreader messages more accurate
---
src/backend/access/transam/xlogreader.c | 11 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend
