From: | Nikhil Benesch <nikhil(dot)benesch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove inconsistent quotes from date_part error |
Date: | 2022-01-03 18:54:58 |
Message-ID: | CAPWqQZSPR5F7mwHM_BDsj3DLnPEx_id2e3YeFJLqQx=H2w-Nhg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 1:14 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Hmm, I think you went a bit too far here. The existing code intends
> to draw a distinction between "not recognized" (i.e., "we don't know
> what that word was you used") and "not supported" (i.e., "we know
> that word, but it doesn't seem to make sense in context, or we
> haven't got round to the case yet"). You've mashed those into the
> same error text, which I don't think we should do, especially
> since we're using distinct ERRCODE values for them.
Oops. I noticed that "inconsistency" between
ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED and ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE and
then promptly blazed past it. Thanks for catching that.
> Attached v3 restores that distinction, and makes some other small
> tweaks. (I found that there were actually a couple of spots in
> date.c that got it backwards, so admittedly this is a fine point
> that not everybody is on board with. But let's make it consistent
> now.)
LGTM too, for whatever that's worth.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashwin Agrawal | 2022-01-03 18:55:06 | Re: Throttling WAL inserts when the standby falls behind more than the configured replica_lag_in_bytes |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-01-03 18:52:09 | Re: PostgreSQL stops when adding a breakpoint in CLion |