Re: not fully correct error message

Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
> On 1/3/26 1:22 PM, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>> Em sáb., 3 de jan. de 2026 às 03:35, Pavel Stehule
>> <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>> escreveu:
>>> here is a patch (with small regress test)

>> An anonymous block doesn't accept vacuum too.
>> Wouldn't it be better to specify what kind of block you are running
>> instead of function, procedure or anonymous block ?

I don't think PreventInTransactionBlock has ready access to that
information.

> A potential third option would be to take your solution but to add a
> HINT about that it needs to run as a top-level statement outside any
> transactions, but I kinda liked how simple the original patch was.

Yeah, I like just adding "or procedure" and calling it good.
I do not think we need a regression test, either ...

Poking around, I also found this:

src/backend/commands/wait.c: errdetail("WAIT FOR cannot be executed from a function or a procedure or within a transaction with an isolation level higher than READ COMMITTED."));

which is also not great grammar. What do you think of "WAIT FOR
cannot be executed from a function or procedure, nor within a
transaction with an isolation level higher than READ COMMITTED." ?

regards, tom lane