| From: | Baji Shaik <baji(dot)pgdev(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Improve REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) error messages for unsupported configurations |
| Date: | 2026-05-27 23:51:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+fm-ROcO5huc0ax7MuNtAGr6W+A3K7WiaxZfaLevTuWWvkrpQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Chao,
Thanks for the quick review and feedback.
On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 1:50 AM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> > On May 27, 2026, at 11:06, Baji Shaik <baji(dot)pgdev(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> When I was working on 832e220d99a, I actually considered for more detailed
> error messages, but I ended up giving up. I think we should be careful
> about adding more branches here unless the existing message is causing
> significant confusion in practice.
>
> So, I personally don’t like 0002.
>
I hear the concern of adding more branches here. FWIW, neither the
deferrable PK limitation nor the REPLICA IDENTITY FULL case is
documented in repack.sgml, and the current error message doesn't
surface either issue. The user has no way to discover what's wrong
without reading the source. That's why I think the improved messages
are warranted here. Happy to add a documentation note as well, or
both. Let me know what's preferred.
But happy to drop 0002 if others feel the same. 0001 and 0003 stand on
their own.
Thanks,
Baji Shaik
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-05-28 00:02:09 | Re: uuidv7 improperly accepts dates before 1970-01-01 |
| Previous Message | Roberto Mello | 2026-05-27 23:49:14 | Re: DBeaver Experiencing timeouts while connecting to New Linux PostgreSql server |