Re: PG13: message style changes

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: PG13: message style changes
Date: 2020-11-07 05:58:42
Message-ID: 20201107055842.GA1486@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:49:43AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In 0001, I propose changing messages that were introduced as different
> for parallel vacuum workers. Frankly I don't understand why we are
> bragging about the vacuum being done in a parallel worker; does the user
> care? It seems to me that users are just satisfied to know that the
> indexes were scanned; the fact that this was done in a parallel worker
> is not of much interest, so why call attention to that? Therefore, we
> can reduce the message to what's emitted in the normal case.

Indeed. Worth noting also that one can get the same level of
information with %P in log_line_prefix.

> In 0002, I propose to remove the word "concurrently" in an error
> message when an invalid index cannot be reindexed. In fact, the problem
> is generic: we just cannot reindex the index at all, regardless of
> concurrently or not. So we can reduce this message to be identical to
> the one we throw in the non-concurrent case.

No issues from me here.

> Patch 0004 just adds a comment to clarify a message that I found
> confusing when doing the translation.

+1.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-11-07 06:06:10 Re: pgbench stopped supporting large number of client connections on Windows
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2020-11-07 05:05:58 Re: extension patch of CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER