Thank you for the comment.
At Fri, 24 Dec 2021 17:06:57 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
wrote in
> Thank you for the patch! +1 for improving the messages.
>
> >
> > > LOG: terminating process %d to release replication slot \"%s\" because
> > > its restart_lsn %X/%X exceeds max_slot_wal_keep_size
> > > DETAIL: The slot got behind the limit %X/%X determined by
> > > max_slot_wal_keep_size.
> >
> > > LOG: invalidating slot \"%s\" because its restart_LSN %X/%X exceeds
> > > max_slot_wal_keep_size
> > c> DETAIL: The slot got behind the limit %X/%X determined by
> > max_slot_wal_keep_size.
>
> -
> LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(restart_lsn))));
> +
> LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(restart_lsn)),
> + errdetail("The slot
> got behind the limit %X/%X determined by max_slot_wal_keep_size.",
> +
> LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(oldestLSN))));
>
> Isn't oldestLSN calculated not only by max_slot_wal_keep_size but also
> by wal_keep_size?
Right. But I believe the two are not assumed to be used at once. One
can set wal_keep_size larger than max_slot_wal_keep_size but it is
actually a kind of ill setting.
LOG: terminating process %d to release replication slot \"%s\" because its
restart_lsn %X/%X exceeds max_slot_wal_keep_size
DETAIL: The slot got behind the limit %X/%X determined by
max_slot_wal_keep_size and wal_keep_size.
Mmm. I don't like this. I feel we don't need such detail in the
message.. I'd like to hear opinions from others, please.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
