From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
Date: | 2020-03-26 23:33:21 |
Message-ID: | 20200326233321.GA15224@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:49:51PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > ... So once we've "reverted back", 1) the pointer is null; and, 2)
> > > the callback function doesn't access it for the previous/reverted
> > > phase anyway.
>
> BTW I'm pretty sure this "revert back" phrasing is not good English --
> you should just use "revert". Maybe get some native speaker's opinion
> on it.
I'm a native speaker; "revert back" might be called redundant but I think it's
common usage.
> And speaking of language, I find the particle "cbarg" rather very ugly,
> and it's *everywhere* -- function name, function argument, local
> variable, enum values, enum name. It even spread to the typedefs.list
> file! Is this a new virus??? Put some soap in it! Can't we use "info"
> or "state" or something similar, less infectious, instead?
I renamed it since it was kind of opaque looking. It's in all the same places,
so equally infectious; but I hope you like it better.
Cheers,
--
Justin
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v37-0001-Introduce-vacuum-errcontext-to-display-additiona.patch | text/x-diff | 21.4 KB |
v37-0002-Drop-reltuples.patch | text/x-diff | 4.0 KB |
v37-0003-Avoid-some-calls-to-RelationGetRelationName.patch | text/x-diff | 3.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | asaba.takanori@fujitsu.com | 2020-03-27 00:20:07 | RE: Conflict handling for COPY FROM |
Previous Message | Mike Palmiotto | 2020-03-26 23:30:02 | Re: Auxiliary Processes and MyAuxProc |