On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 8:53 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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."? > > I think the suggested message aligns better with the implementation. > > I updated the message based on Horiguchi-San's revision. Additionally, > 035_conflicts.pl has been modified, as it was waiting for the resume DETAIL > message and this message has now been updated. >
LGTM. Horiguchi-San, do let me know if you have suggestions here. I am planning to push this tomorrow. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
