On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 8:54 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > - I find the use of the word "generate" in error messages slightly > odd. I think it's reasonable given the existing precedent, but the > word I would have picked is "assign", which I see is what Aleksander > actually had in v1. How would people feel about changing the two > existing messages that say "database is not accepting commands that > generate new MultiXactIds to avoid wraparound data loss ..." to use > "assign" instead, and then make the new messages match that?
WFM. > - I think that 0002 needs a bit of wordsmithing. I will work on that. > In particular, I don't like this sentence: "It increases downtime, > makes monitoring impossible, disables replication, bypasses safeguards > against wraparound, etc." While there's nothing untrue there, it feels > more like a sentence from a pgsql-hackers email where most people > participating in the discussion understand the general contours of the > problem already than like polished documentation that really lays > things out methodically. I agree. > - I'm somewhat inclined to have a go at restructuring these patches a > bit so that some of the documentation changes can potentially be > back-patched without back-patching the message changes. Even if we > eventually decide to back-patch everything or nothing, there are > wording adjustments spread across all 3 patches that seem somewhat > independent of the changes to the server messages. I think it would be > clearer to have one patch that is mostly about documentation wording > changes, and a second one that is about changing the server messages > and then making documentation changes that are directly dependent on > those message changes. And I might also be inclined to back-patch the > former patch as far as it makes sense to do so, while leaving the > latter one master-only. No objections from me. -- Peter Geoghegan
