On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 9:13 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <[email protected]> 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.
