| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Daniel Gustafsson <dgustafsson(at)pivotal(dot)io>, ANASTACIO Tiago <tiago_anastacio(at)yahoo(dot)fr>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15726: parallel queries failed ERROR: invalid name syntax CONTEXT: parallel worker |
| Date: | 2019-04-12 16:47:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1338.1555087669@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:04:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The extra appearance of "parallel worker" seems a bit redundant,
>> though I don't know if we can get rid of it.
>>
>> Could we at least be consistent about whether the context is
>> "parallel worker" or "parallel worker process"?
> Indeed. My vote would be to back-patch that stuff.
After thinking about it some more: can't we just make the new context
message be
CONTEXT: while setting parameter "x" to "y"
full stop? The outer context line about "parallel worker" should
be enough for that. As a bonus, if we ever decide that such a
context line would be useful for all GUC errors, we wouldn't need
a different spelling of it for that.
I took a quick look through the patch, and I think it's okay
implementation-wise, though personally I'd have used some less
generic name than "pair" for the variables.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-12 16:55:04 | Re: BUG #15746: cache lookup failed for function in plpgsql block |
| Previous Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2019-04-12 13:48:19 | Re: BUG #15585: infinite DynamicSharedMemoryControlLock waiting in parallel query |