| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Include schema-qualified names in publication error messages. |
| Date: | 2026-05-05 10:42:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1L3auTJdTen=dh9abFgWf-qpMFPaYCWL-h+ME=B-gebxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 4:02 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Now, we also need to decide whether to backpatch the relevant change
> > to back-branches. It seems we didn't get the bug-report yet but
> > clearly what we do currently is not correct. So, we should ideally
> > backpatch it and in the back branches we don't need to expose it.
> > OTOH, as it is reported and is not a big issue, so we can keep this as
> > a HEAD only change as well. If we want to keep this as a HEAD only
> > change then shall we wait for PG20 branch to open or go for current
> > HEAD itself? What do you and or others think on this matter?
>
> I think we should apply in PG19. Although back-patching isn't
> critical, since we already have an opportunity to fix it in PG19, why
> not push it early?
>
I also think we should push it for PG19 especially because the EXCEPT
feature increased the usage of relation names without schema-name in
error messages. However, as we are past feature freeze, I wanted to
know the opinion of others as well.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Henson Choi | 2026-05-05 11:17:31 | Re: CREATE TABLE LIKE INCLUDING TRIGGERS |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2026-05-05 10:32:27 | Re: Include schema-qualified names in publication error messages. |