Re: Add pg_stat_recovery system view

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, yangyz <1197620467(at)qq(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Add pg_stat_recovery system view
Date: 2026-03-06 15:45:05
Message-ID: 297458.1772811905@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I have one small additional comment on pushed 0001.
> ```
> if (get_call_result_type(fcinfo, NULL, &tupdesc) != TYPEFUNC_COMPOSITE)
> elog(ERROR, "return type must be a row type");
> ```

> This uses elog(ERROR), while the other functions in the same file use ereport(ERROR). I think ereport is generally preferred nowadays over elog.

No: you are incorrect and this snippet is perfectly normal (in fact,
probably copied-and-pasted from one of many other occurrences).
The actual coding rule is basically "use ereport() for user-facing
errors and elog() for not-supposed-to-happen errors". What we're
after is to not expend translator effort on not-supposed-to-happen
error messages. While you can build a ereport call that's not
translated, elog() is a lower-notation way to get the same result.
See [1], particularly the elog() discussion near the end of the
page.

I've not read the patch so I don't know if it made sane ereport-vs-
elog choices elsewhere, but this one is fine.

regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/error-message-reporting.html

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xuneng Zhou 2026-03-06 15:49:41 Re: Add pg_stat_recovery system view
Previous Message Álvaro Herrera 2026-03-06 15:33:23 Re: Rework SLRU I/O errors handle