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

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. 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.

PS> since we don't have a REL_19_STABLE branch yet, backpatch refers to v18 or
earlier.

--
Euler Taveira
EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/