| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: not fully correct error message |
| Date: | 2026-01-03 12:39:28 |
| Message-ID: | 8fa16ea7-09a1-4ec2-b668-1e36d4c8ace4@proxel.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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 ?
Maybe out of some kind of correctness, but it seems less useful to me
since the obvious question an end user would ask after trying to run
VACUUM in a function is if they can do so in a procedure instead so we
may as well tell them right away.
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.
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dewei Dai | 2026-01-03 12:45:44 | Re: Re: postgres_fdw: Use COPY to speed up batch inserts |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2026-01-03 12:34:46 | Re: not fully correct error message |