| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: error message when subscription target is a partitioned table |
| Date: | 2019-01-08 02:10:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20190108021023.GI22498@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 05:28:27PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2019/01/07 16:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> It seems to me that we may want something more like:
>> Primary: "could not use \"%s.%s\" as logical replication target".
>> Detail: "Relation %s.%s is a foreign table", "not a table", etc.
>
> I've thought about that before and I tend to agree with you. Maybe:
>
> ERROR: cannot use "%s.%s" as logical replication target
> DETAIL: Using partitioned tables as logical replication target is not
> supported.
>
> Sounds a bit repetitive, but perhaps it's better to use the words "not
> supported" in the DETAIL message.
Or the detailed message could just say "\"%s.%s\" is a foreign table"
and such flavor for other relkinds? It is redundant to repeat
"logical replication target" for both message parts. The primary
message to use "cannot" instead of "could" is much better, so that
part sounds fine to me.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-08 02:31:52 | Re: Displaying and dumping of table access methods |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-01-08 02:08:58 | Re: Displaying and dumping of table access methods |