On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:04 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > Or I thought the values could be moved to DETAILS: line.
Yeah, I think that's likely to be the right approach here. The details aren't too clear to me. Does the primary error message really need to say "could not sync slot"? If it will be obvious from context that we were trying to sync a slot, then it would be fine to just say "ERROR: remote slot precedes local slot". But I also don't quite understand what problem this is trying to report. Is this slot-syncing code running on the primary or the standby? If it's running on the primary, then surely it's expected that the remote slot will precede the local one. And if it's running on the standby, then the comments in update_and_persist_local_synced_slot about waiting for the remote side to catch up seem quite confusing, because surely we're chasing the primary and not the other way around? But if we ignore all of that, then we could just do this: ERROR: could not sync slot information as remote slot precedes local slot DETAIL: Remote slot has LSN %X/%X and catalog xmin %u, but remote slot has LSN %X/%X and catalog xmin %u. which would fix the original complaint, and my point about using English rather than just printing a bunch of values. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
