On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> With those changes, I think this is committable, and will do so, >> barring objections. > > Obey message style guidelines, please, especially if you're going > to promote any of those to ereports.
The only new message would be the one Greg has as: Unable to forward fsync request, executing directly For that, we could just go with: could not forward fsync request (Lower case, avoid use of unable, telegram style with program as implicit subject.) It might be even better to mention that the reason why we couldn't forward the fsync request is that the fsync request queue is full. I'm not sure exactly how to phrase that. I thought about: fsync request queue is full But that seems not to answer the "so what" question. There is an example like this in the docs: could not forward fsync request (fsync request queue is full) ...but I'm not sure I like that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
