| From: | Emre Hasegeli <emre(at)hasegeli(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: "pgoutput" options missing on documentation |
| Date: | 2023-12-18 07:38:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAE2gYzz4JL3oPKicdWYshFwUpH4EZevNbjDzewqNf9BqWaovJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I found the existing error code appropriate because for syntax
> specification, either we need to mandate this at the grammar level or
> at the API level. Also, I think we should give a message similar to an
> existing message: "publication_names parameter missing". For example,
> we can say, "proto_version parameter missing". BTW, I also don't like
> the other changes parse_output_parameters() done in 0001, if we want
> to improve all the similar messages there are other places in the code
> as well, so we can separately make the case for the same.
Okay, I am changing these back. I think we should keep the word
"option". It is used on other error messages.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2023-12-18 07:38:16 | Re: "pgoutput" options missing on documentation |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-12-18 07:27:58 | Re: Report planning memory in EXPLAIN ANALYZE |