On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> > So maybe 'Encountered xl_running_xacts record with xcnt = 0.'? >> >> >> >> That's not very user-facing, is it -- I mean, why bother the user with >> >> the names of structs and members thereof? It seems better to describe >> >> what the condition is; something like "found point in time with no >> >> running transaction". Maybe "point in time" should be "WAL record" >> >> instead. >> > >> > Is that really a win in clarity? When analyzing a problem I'd much >> > rather have a concrete hint than something fuzzy. >> >> You can't phrase error messages in terms of internal concepts that 99% >> of users won't understand or care about. Like Peter says, user-facing >> error messages need to be written in English, not C. > > That's not the actual message, but an errdetail() - and lots of those > refer to internals? And it's not an error, but a log message? E.g. we > add error contexts for wal replay errors that print the internals > literaly? And it's *really* helpful?
Like what? That's the only errdetail() currently in the tree that contains ==, for example. I see there are three different detail messages associated with this error message. You don't really need these messages to be phrased in any; it's enough to have the messages be different from each other. 1. found initial snapshot in snapbuild file 2. Transaction ID %u finished; no more running transactions. 3. running xacts with xcnt == 0 The second one follows style guidelines, but the other two do not. I suggest: 1. Logical decoding will begin using saved snapshot. 2. Transaction ID %u finished; no more running transactions. 3. There are no running transactions. -- 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