| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: strange error reporting |
| Date: | 2021-01-20 18:54:43 |
| Message-ID: | 754449.1611168883@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-Jan-20, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I figured it was something like that. I don't know whether the right
>> thing is to use something like PQdb() to get the correct database
>> name, or whether we should go with Tom's suggestion and omit that
>> detail altogether, but I think showing the empty string when the user
>> relied on the default is too confusing.
> Well, the patch seems small enough, and I don't think it'll be in any
> way helpful to omit that detail.
I'm +1 for applying and back-patching that. I still think we might
want to just drop the phrase altogether in HEAD, but we wouldn't do
that in the back branches, and the message is surely misleading as-is.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Jacobson | 2021-01-20 18:57:32 | catalogs.sgml documentation ambiguity |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-01-20 18:53:17 | Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits |