On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 5:41 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <[email protected]> writes: > > Yeah, this sounds clear but shall we consider using > > max_retention_duration like: "Retention is re-enabled because the > > apply process has caught up with the publisher within the configured > > max_retention_duration.". We can have a single message if we don't > > want to specify the value of max_retention_duration or simply skip > > adding max_retention_duration. > > That wording sounds good to me. I think you could leave out > the mention of max_retention_duration, but I won't fight if > people prefer to include it. >
We have a similar message for stop retention. I feel it would be good to mention that as a reason, so users can increase it. I could think of two alternatives for stop message based on above suggestion: "Retention is stopped because the apply process has not caught up with the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration." "Retention is stopped because the apply process could not catch up with the publisher within the configured max_retention_duration." Do you have any preference? The first one resembles a similar resume message and second is probably what I would have used if there was no corresponding resume message. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
