| From: | Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marcos Pegoraro <marcos(at)f10(dot)com(dot)br>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 18:44:44 |
| Message-ID: | a15b72bb-681a-4d17-a0dc-98acc16d3db8@proxel.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/3/26 7:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se> writes:
>> A potential third option would be to take your solution but to add a
>> HINT about that it needs to run as a top-level statement outside any
>> transactions, but I kinda liked how simple the original patch was.
>
> Yeah, I like just adding "or procedure" and calling it good.
> I do not think we need a regression test, either ...
Yeah, let's keep it simple.
> Poking around, I also found this:
>
> src/backend/commands/wait.c: errdetail("WAIT FOR cannot be executed from a function or a procedure or within a transaction with an isolation level higher than READ COMMITTED."));
>
> which is also not great grammar. What do you think of "WAIT FOR
> cannot be executed from a function or procedure, nor within a
> transaction with an isolation level higher than READ COMMITTED." ?
Much better!
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2026-01-03 18:57:56 | Re: GIN pageinspect support for entry tree and posting tree |
| Previous Message | Mahendra Singh Thalor | 2026-01-03 18:29:20 | Re: Non-text mode for pg_dumpall |