| From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH][DOC] Fix for PREPARE TRANSACTION doc and postgres_fdw message. |
| Date: | 2019-11-06 06:12:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAPmGK152=iS=duSaxz7M35Xoamit6NrO8WBn0ze1NGzkgipj2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Michael-san,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> "postgres_fdw foreign tables" sounds weird to me. Could "foreign
> tables using postgres_fdw" be a better wording? I am wondering as
> well if we should not split this information into two parts: one for
> the actual error message which only mentions foreign tables, and a
> second one with a hint to mention that postgres_fdw has been used.
We use "postgres_fdw foreign tables" or "postgres_fdw tables" in
release notes, so I thought it was OK to use that in error messages as
well. But actually, these wordings are not suitable for error
messages?
> We could have more test cases with 2PC in this module, not necessarily
> the responsibility of this patch, but while we're on it..
Agreed. Will do.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-11-06 06:44:42 | Re: cost based vacuum (parallel) |
| Previous Message | amul sul | 2019-11-06 06:11:47 | Re: [HACKERS] advanced partition matching algorithm for partition-wise join |