Re: 7.2.3 vacuum bug

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.2.3 vacuum bug
Date: 2002-10-31 04:54:50
Message-ID: 87smynb42t.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> But relation "a" *does* exist at the start of client 2's operation.
> While I'm not here to defend the exact phrasing of this error message,
> it does seem to me that it's appropriate to give a different error
> message than what appears when the table wasn't found at all.

Ok, fair enough -- I agree that we should treat the two cases
differently. But one thing I think we should do in any case is improve
the wording of the error message.

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-10-31 04:57:29 Re: 7.2.3 vacuum bug
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-10-31 04:52:28 Re: move 0 behaviour