On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 at 11:17, Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Vignesh. > > Feedback for v4-0001. > > ====== > src/backend/replication/logical/conflict.c > > I guess the following are not strictly the fault of this patch, but I > thought a few of these messages could be improved and made consistent. > Since you are anyway changing most of these messages, now might be the > best time to do it. > > e.g. > Current: "Updating the row that was..." > > SUGGESTION#1. "Updating a row that was..." > SUGGESTION#2. "Attempting to update a row that was..." > SUGGESTION#3. "The row to be updated was..." > > e.g. > Current: "Deleting the row that was..." > > SUGGESTION#1. "Deleting a row that was..." > SUGGESTION#2. "Attempting to delete a row that was..." > SUGGESTION#3. "The row to be deleted was..." > > ~~ > > And another below (outside the patch) could be updated to be the same: > > e.g. > Current: "The row to be updated was deleted by..." > > SUGGESTION#1. "Updating a row that was deleted by..." > SUGGESTION#2. "Attempting to update a row that was deleted by..." > SUGGESTION#3. Leave as-is. "The row to be updated was..." > > ~~~ > > All those conflict messages should be consistent-looking. > > I prefer suggestion #3 because those are also the same as the existing > code comments of the ConflictType enum.
Since these suggestions are not directly related to the issue being addressed here, they should be discussed separately and handled accordingly. Regards, Vignesh
