Re: Incorrect format in error message

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Incorrect format in error message
Date: 2016-04-01 07:30:08
Message-ID: 20160401073008.GC9074@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-04-01 20:18:29 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On 1 April 2016 at 17:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> >> The attached fixes an error message which is incorrectly using an
> >> unsigned format specifier instead of a signed one.
> >
> > Really though, what
> > astonishes me about this example is that we allow indexes at all on
> > system columns other than OID. None of the other ones can possibly
> > have either a use-case or sensible semantics, can they? We certainly
> > would not stop to update indexes after changing xmax, for example.
>
> As for this part. I really don't see how we could disable this without
> breaking pg_restore for database who have such indexes. My best
> thought is to add some sort of warning during CREATE INDEX, like we do
> for HASH indexes.

As they're currently already not working correctly as indexes, I don't
see throwing an error during pg_restore as being overly harmful.

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2016-04-01 08:20:10 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Previous Message David Rowley 2016-04-01 07:18:29 Re: Incorrect format in error message