Re: GUC names in messages

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GUC names in messages
Date: 2023-11-30 20:38:03
Message-ID: 00b8d030-15cb-4609-b34a-98519b4c4c3b@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 30.11.23 06:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
> ereport(elevel,
> (errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT),
> - errmsg("unrecognized configuration parameter \"%s\" in file \"%s\" line %d",
> - item->name,
> + /* translator: %s%s%s is for an optionally quoted GUC name */
> + errmsg("unrecognized configuration parameter %s%s%s in file \"%s\" line %d",
> + GUC_FORMAT(item->name),
> item->filename, item->sourceline)));

I think this is completely over-engineered and wrong. If we start down
this road, then the next person is going to start engineering some rules
by which we should quote file names and other things. Which will lead
to more confusion, not less. The whole point of this quoting thing is
that you do it all the time or not, not dynamically based on what's
inside of it.

The original version of this string (and similar ones) seems the most
correct, simple, and useful one to me.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2023-11-30 20:38:34 postgres_fdw test timeouts
Previous Message Andres Freund 2023-11-30 20:31:29 Re: Refactoring backend fork+exec code