Re: not fully correct error message

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>
Cc: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: not fully correct error message
Date: 2026-01-03 12:34:46
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCAA0L7zQZaRVTByY1RxfpzV0Yy3dzYL2iccnDmGauUBA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

so 3. 1. 2026 v 13:23 odesílatel Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br> napsal:

> Em sáb., 3 de jan. de 2026 às 03:35, Pavel Stehule <
> pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> escreveu:
>
>> here is a patch (with small regress test)
>>
>
> An anonymous block doesn't accept vacuum too.
> Wouldn't it be better to specify what kind of block you are running
> instead of
> function, procedure or anonymous block ?
>

It is correct, but maybe too long.

Generally, there is a term "routine" as a synonym for "function, procedure
or any stored procedure code", but I am not sure how much is accepted by
the community

> regards
> Marcos
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Karlsson 2026-01-03 12:39:28 Re: not fully correct error message
Previous Message Andrey Borodin 2026-01-03 12:22:35 Re: confusing results from pg_get_replication_slots()