| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Issue in postgres_fdw causing unnecessary wait for cancel request reply |
| Date: | 2023-04-13 18:19:09 |
| Message-ID: | 9ee1aca8-4678-fc71-33e6-85ee025608ee@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023/04/13 15:13, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> I am not 100% sure that it is a good idea to use the same error
> message "could not send cancel request" for the PQgetCancel() and
> PQcancel() cases, because they are different functions. How about
> "could not create PGcancel structure” or something like that, for the
The primary message basically should avoid reference to implementation details such as specific structure names like PGcancel, shouldn't it, as per the error message style guide?
> former case, so we can distinguish the former error from the latter?
Although the primary message is the same, the supplemental message provides additional context that can help distinguish which function is reporting the message. Therefore, I'm fine with the current primary message in the 0001 patch. However, I'm open to any better message ideas.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Lippai | 2023-04-13 18:35:48 | Re: COPY TO STDOUT Apache Arrow support |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2023-04-13 18:04:24 | Re: Issue in postgres_fdw causing unnecessary wait for cancel request reply |