| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF" |
| Date: | 2025-04-01 13:58:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZwkcbPdU5KdzQTNCMZ=uUYDhLFoKXFijTEtzqvBzSYsA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:54 AM Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> Re: Robert Haas
> > > Another question is should we back-patch this? I believe we should (?)
> > I don't think this qualifies as a bug. The current wording isn't
> > factually wrong, just unhelpful. Even if it were wrong, we need a
> > pretty good reason to change message strings in a stable branch,
> > because that can break things for users who are grepping for the
> > current string (or a translation thereof). If an overwhelming
> > consensus in favor of back-patching emerges, fine, but my gut feeling
> > is that back-patching will make more people sad than it makes happy.
>
> It's only the HINT part. If I were to grep/search for the message, I
> would definitely use the message part.
I'm sure you would, but you're very smart.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-04-01 13:59:01 | Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF" |
| Previous Message | torikoshia | 2025-04-01 13:57:44 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |