Re: [PATCH][DOC] Fix for PREPARE TRANSACTION doc and postgres_fdw message.

From: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][DOC] Fix for PREPARE TRANSACTION doc and postgres_fdw message.
Date: 2019-11-06 11:13:10
Message-ID: CAPmGK174_9SOx2M+-SJw=TXRL6xJayrVFjf7UX+mAMuLQzg6cQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Michael-san,

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:35 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:04PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> >> "postgres_fdw foreign tables" sounds weird to me. Could "foreign
> >> tables using postgres_fdw" be a better wording? I am wondering as
> >> well if we should not split this information into two parts: one for
> >> the actual error message which only mentions foreign tables, and a
> >> second one with a hint to mention that postgres_fdw has been used.
> >
> > We use "postgres_fdw foreign tables" or "postgres_fdw tables" in
> > release notes, so I thought it was OK to use that in error messages as
> > well. But actually, these wordings are not suitable for error
> > messages?
>
> It is true that the docs of postgres_fdw use that and that it is used
> in some comments. Still, I found this wording a bit weird.. If you
> think that what you have is better, I am also fine to let you have the
> final word, so please feel to ignore me :)

I'd like to hear the opinions of others.

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2019-11-06 11:29:37 Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2019-11-06 11:08:03 Re: pgbench - rework variable management