On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 9:07 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote: > > On 2021-Mar-09, James Coleman wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:47 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 2021-Mar-07, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 3:39 PM Fujii Masao > > > > <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > > > > Great, so we're agreed on the messages to emit. James, are you updating > > > your patch, considering Fujii's note about the new signal and pmstate > > > that need to be added? > > > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but I was under the impression the > > "prefer the former message" meant we were not adding a new signal and > > pmstate? > > Eh, I read that differently. I was proposing two options for the DETAIL > line in that case: > > > DETAIL: Hot standby mode is disabled. > > or maybe > > DETAIL: Consistent state has not yet been reached, and hot standby mode > > is disabled. > > and both Fujii and Magnus said they prefer the first option over the > second option. I don't read any of them as saying that they would like > to do something else (including not doing anything). > > Maybe I misinterpreted them?
Yes, I think they both agreed on the "DETAIL: Hot standby mode is disabled." message, but that alternative meant not needing to add any new signals and pm states, correct? Thanks, James
