From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Inaccurate error message when set fdw batch_size to 0 |
Date: | 2021-05-17 10:53:18 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J8vQss4hP_LCdhh1YHpFHRx5P1tRJyAMZj+pdqFrFz+Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:28 AM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > >> Yeah, this error message seems outright buggy. However, it's a minor
> > >> matter. Also, some people think "positive" is the same thing as
> > >> "non-negative", so maybe we need less ambiguous wording?
> >
> > > Since value 0 can't be considered as either a positive or negative
> > > integer, I think we can do as following(roughly):
> >
> > > if (value < 0) "requires a zero or positive integer value"
> > > if (value <= 0) "requires a positive integer value"
> >
> > I was thinking of avoiding the passive voice and writing
> >
> > "foo must be greater than zero"
>
> +1 for "foo must be greater than zero" if (foo <= 0) kind of errors.
> But, we also have some values for which zero is accepted, see below
> error messages. How about the error message "foo must be greater than
> or equal to zero"?
>
+1 for your proposed message for the cases where we have a check if
(foo < 0). Tom, Michael, do you see any problem with the proposed
message? We would like to make a similar change at another place [1]
so wanted to be consistent.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-05-17 11:06:51 | Re: Multiple hosts in connection string failed to failover in non-hot standby mode |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-05-17 10:46:18 | Re: "ERROR: deadlock detected" when replicating TRUNCATE |