On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 9:37 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 1:58 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > Some messages recently introduced by commit 29d0a77fa6 seem to deviate
> > slightly from our standards.
> >
> > +               if (*invalidated && SlotIsLogical(s) && IsBinaryUpgrade)
> > +               {
> > +                       ereport(ERROR,
> > +                                       
> > errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> > +                                       errmsg("replication slots must not 
> > be invalidated during the upgrade"),
> > +                                       errhint("\"max_slot_wal_keep_size\" 
> > must be set to -1 during the upgrade"));
> >
> > The message for errhint is not a complete sentence. And errmsg is not
> > in telegraph style.  The first attached makes minimum changes.
> >
> > However, if allowed, I'd like to propose an alternative set of
> > messages as follows:
> >
> > +                                       errmsg("replication slot is 
> > invalidated during upgrade"),
> > +                                       errhint("Set 
> > \"max_slot_wal_keep_size\" to -1 to avoid invalidation."));
> >
> > The second attached does this.
> >
> > What do you think about those?
> >
>
> IIUC the only possible way to reach this error (according to the
> comment preceding it) is by the user overriding the GUC value (which
> was defaulted -1) on the command line.
>

Yeah, this is my understanding as well.

> + /*
> + * The logical replication slots shouldn't be invalidated as
> + * max_slot_wal_keep_size GUC is set to -1 during the upgrade.
> + *
> + * The following is just a sanity check.
> + */
>
> Given that, I felt a more relevant msg/hint might be like:
>
> errmsg("\"max_slot_wal_keep_size\" must be set to -1 during the upgrade"),
> errhint("Do not override \"max_slot_wal_keep_size\" using command line
> options."));
>

But OTOH, we don't have a value of user-passed options to ensure that.
So, how about a slightly different message: "This can be caused by
overriding \"max_slot_wal_keep_size\" using command line options." or
something along those lines? I see a somewhat similar message in the
existing code (errhint("This can be caused ...")).

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.


Reply via email to