> On Apr 30, 2021, at 12:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm, I think that might need adjustment, actually. What I was trying
> to do is compensate for the fact that what we now have is the next
> chunk_seq value we expect, not the last one we saw, nor the total
> number of chunks we've seen regardless of what chunk_seq they had. But
> I thought it would be too confusing to just give the chunk number we
> were expecting and not say anything about how many chunks we thought
> there would be in total. So maybe what I should do is change it to
> something like this:
>
> toast value %u was expected to end at chunk %d, but ended while
> expecting chunk %d
>
> i.e. same as the currently-committed code, except for changing "ended
> at" to "ended while expecting."
I find the grammar of this new formulation anomalous for hard to articulate
reasons not quite the same as but akin to mismatched verb aspect.
—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
