| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
| Date: | 2019-06-20 03:29:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20190620032936.GA28895@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-May-27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:20:58AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I notice your patch changes "catalog relations" to "system catalogs".
> > I think we predominantly prefer the latter, so that part of your change
> > seems OK. (In passing, I noticed we have a couple of places using
> > "system catalog tables", which is weird.)
>
> Good point. These are not new though, so I would prefer not touch
> those parts for this patch.
Sure.
> > We do have "is not yet implemented" in a
> > couple of other places, so all things considered I'm not so sure about
> > changing that one to "cannot".
>
> Okay. I can live with this difference. Not changing the string in
> ReindexRelationConcurrently() has the merit to be consistent with the
> existing ones in reindex_relation() and ReindexPartitionedIndex().
> Please find attached an updated version. What do you think?
Looks good.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | RekGRpth | 2019-06-20 03:40:58 | Disconnect from SPI manager on error |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-06-20 03:14:07 | JOIN_SEMI planning question |