On Friday, October 27, 2023 1:21 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I found the following message recently introduced in pg_upgrade:
>
> > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slot_name: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\",
> two_phase: %s",
> > slot_info->slotname,
> > slot_info->plugin,
> > slot_info->two_phase ? "true" : "false");
>
> If the labels correspond to the struct member names, the first label ought to
> be
> "slotname". If not, all labels of this type, including those adjucent, should
> have a
> more natural spelling.
>
> What do you think about this?
Thanks for reporting. But I am not sure if rename to slotname or others will be
an
improvement. I think we don't have a rule to make the output the same as struct
field. Existing message also don't follow it[1]. So, the current message looks
OK to me.
[1]
pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "relname: \"%s.%s\", reloid: %u, reltblspace:
\"%s\"",
rel_arr->rels[relnum].nspname,
rel_arr->rels[relnum].relname,
rel_arr->rels[relnum].reloid,
rel_arr->rels[relnum].tablespace);
Best Regards,
Hou zj
