From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org, houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A doubt about a newly added errdetail |
Date: | 2022-09-28 08:17:25 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LW+wHmNhMPmGydGXOejB_EKrqcQVoDLDPD0kUB51AAaA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 11:30 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> At Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:19:35 +0200, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote in
> > Yeah, since you're changing another word in that line, it's ok to move
> > the parameter line off-string. (If you were only changing the parameter
> > to %s and there was no message duplication, I would reject the patch as
> > useless.)
>
> I'm fine with that. By the way, related to the area, I found the
> following error messages.
>
> > errmsg("publication \"%s\" is defined as FOR ALL TABLES",
> > NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
> > errdetail("Schemas cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL TABLES publications.")));
>
> It looks tome that the errmsg and errordetail are reversed. Isn't the following order common?
>
> > errmsg("schemas cannot be added to or dropped from publication \"%s\".",
> > NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
> > errdetail("The publication is defined as FOR ALL TABLES.")));
>
This one seems to be matching with the below existing message:
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE),
errmsg("publication \"%s\" is defined as FOR ALL TABLES",
NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
errdetail("Tables cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL TABLES
publications.")));
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-28 08:21:19 | Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation |
Previous Message | Polina Bungina | 2022-09-28 08:09:05 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |