Re: pg_get_functiondef forgets about most GUC_LIST_INPUT GUCs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com, a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_get_functiondef forgets about most GUC_LIST_INPUT GUCs
Date: 2018-03-22 01:27:11
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 01:40:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't mind making it an ereport, but I think it needs to be FATAL
>> for the reason stated in the comment.

> Okay for the FATAL. I can see that at this time of the day your patch
> 0002 has already been pushed as 846b5a5 with an elog(). Still, it seems
> to me that this is not an internal error but an error caused by an
> external cause which can be user-visible, so I would push forward with
> switching it to an ereport().

Well, after some consideration I pushed it like that because it's not
really a user-facing error but a developer-facing error. Should we ask
translators to spend time on that message? I doubt it. Also, the
adjacent test to refuse PGC_POSTMASTER variables is just an elog;
that seems like pretty much the same sort of situation, and nobody's
complained about it.

If we do something here we should change both of those calls, but
I really doubt it's worth the effort.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2018-03-22 01:33:07 Re: [PoC PATCH] Parallel dump to /dev/null
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2018-03-22 01:22:47 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions