| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER COLLATION misses errcode |
| Date: | 2026-10-31 16:46:36 |
| Message-ID: | 234087.1793465196@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 at 14:53, Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2026 at 13:56, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>>> Is ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED correct here? Is this something that we
>>> just don't currently support, but we potentially could, or is it
>>> something that just doesn't make sense?
>> I think this is something that simply doesn't make sense. But reading
>> errcodes.h using myself (not AI), I don't see any better option. maybe
>> ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE ?
> Also ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE could do but is defined in /* Class 42
> - Syntax Error or Access Rule Violation */. Not sure if we violating
> something here
I think FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED is fine here. Let's not spend too
much effort on the color of this bikeshed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre Forstmann | 2026-10-31 16:51:46 | Re: Remove obsolete locking comment from AddBufferToRing() |
| Previous Message | Roman Khapov | 2026-10-31 16:35:42 | Re: Speeding up GIST index creation for hstore |