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

On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:38 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:03 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 11:30 AM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 6 May 2026 at 09:27, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > The updated patch has the changes to split it.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks Vignesh.
> >
> > +/*
> > + * get_qualified_relname
> > + * Get a palloc'd string containing the schema-qualified name of the relation
> > + * for the given namespace ID and relation name.
> > + */
> > +char *
> > +get_qualified_relname(Oid nspid, char *relname)
> >
> > I think, instead of get_qualified_relname(), we should have generic
> > get_qualified_objname(), so that others can also use it.

+1

>
> That makes sense. I have changed that in the attached and made slight
> modifications in the comments. How about attached?

Attached patch LGTM.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
Google