|From:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|To:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>|
|Cc:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: error message when subscription target is a partitioned table|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2019/01/08 11:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 05:28:27PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> On 2019/01/07 16:35, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> It seems to me that we may want something more like:
>>> Primary: "could not use \"%s.%s\" as logical replication target".
>>> Detail: "Relation %s.%s is a foreign table", "not a table", etc.
>> I've thought about that before and I tend to agree with you. Maybe:
>> ERROR: cannot use "%s.%s" as logical replication target
>> DETAIL: Using partitioned tables as logical replication target is not
>> Sounds a bit repetitive, but perhaps it's better to use the words "not
>> supported" in the DETAIL message.
> Or the detailed message could just say "\"%s.%s\" is a foreign table"
> and such flavor for other relkinds? It is redundant to repeat
> "logical replication target" for both message parts.
Yeah, I think so too. I also noticed that the patch uses
ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE as the error code, whereas we may want to use
ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED. Thoughts on that?
Attached updated patch, which changes the detail message text as you
suggest and updates the error code.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2019-01-08 04:44:22||Re: [Sender Address Forgery]Re: error message when subscription target is a partitioned table|
|Previous Message||Michael Paquier||2019-01-08 04:02:00||Re: Displaying and dumping of table access methods|