Re: Inaccurate error message when set fdw batch_size to 0

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.

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACWGB9oHCR5ygkc8u6_QDqecObf9j2MxtOgsjZMMKsLj%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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