At Tue, 7 Feb 2023 09:10:01 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2023 at 6:03 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 5b.
> > Since there are no translator considerations here why not write the
> > second error like:
> >
> > errmsg("%d ms is outside the valid range for parameter
> > \"min_apply_delay\" (%d .. %d)",
> > result, 0, PG_INT32_MAX))
> >
>
> I see that existing usage in the code matches what the patch had
> before this comment. See below and similar usages in the code.
> if (start <= 0)
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
> errmsg("invalid value for parameter \"%s\": %d",
> "start", start)));
The same errmsg text occurs mamy times in the tree. On the other hand
the pointed message is the only one. I suppose Peter considered this
aspect.
# "%d%s%s is outside the valid range for parameter \"%s\" (%d .. %d)"
# also appears just once
As for me, it seems to me a good practice to do that regadless of the
number of duplicates to (semi)mechanically avoid duplicates.
(But I believe I would do as Peter suggests by myself for the first
cut, though:p)
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center