On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 8:14 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > BTW, before I forget: the wording of this log message is just awful. > On first sight, I thought that it meant that we'd computed OldestXmin > a second time and discovered that it advanced by 26 xids while the VACUUM > was running.
> "removable cutoff: %u, which was %d xids old when operation ended\n" How the output appears when placed right before the output describing how VACUUM advanced relfrozenxid is an important consideration. I want the format and wording that we use to imply a relationship between these two things. Right now, that other line looks like this: "new relfrozenxid: %u, which is %d xids ahead of previous value\n" Do you think that this juxtaposition works well? > Also, is it really our practice to spell XID in lower-case in > user-facing messages? There are examples of both. This could easily be changed to "XIDs". -- Peter Geoghegan
