Re: Include schema-qualified names in publication error messages.

On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 5:56 PM Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2026, at 7:42 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > 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.
> >
>
> -1 for backpatching.
>

Agreed.

> These messages (without schema qualification) has been
> like this since the beginning. The function was not introduced by fd366065e06a
> and the proposed patch are changing existing messages as well. It is a good
> idea to keep visible messages (WARNING, ERROR, FATAL, PANIC) consistent so as
> not to break log analysis tools.
>
> I would say the target is v20. However, as Amit said, the change to the EXCEPT
> clause message might be important, so I suggest changing it; I would leave the
> other messages for the RMT to decide.
>

Okay, then we can split the patch into two, the first patch to make
the required changes only for EXCEPT, and the second one for the
remaining pre-existing messages. We can push the first patch in HEAD
and wait for some more opinions on the second one.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.