Re: BUG #15726: parallel queries failed ERROR: invalid name syntaxCONTEXT: parallel worker
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #15726: parallel queries failed ERROR: invalid name syntaxCONTEXT: parallel worker |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGLJyhG1A5=+xRFAnezV-HM=RX+L2qS-An2p34_+Xr_niw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #15726: parallel queries failed ERROR: invalid name syntax CONTEXT: parallel worker (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 4:47 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:04:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The extra appearance of "parallel worker" seems a bit redundant, > >> though I don't know if we can get rid of it. > >> > >> Could we at least be consistent about whether the context is > >> "parallel worker" or "parallel worker process"? > > > Indeed. My vote would be to back-patch that stuff. Done. Apologies for the delay. > After thinking about it some more: can't we just make the new context > message be > CONTEXT: while setting parameter "x" to "y" > full stop? The outer context line about "parallel worker" should > be enough for that. As a bonus, if we ever decide that such a > context line would be useful for all GUC errors, we wouldn't need > a different spelling of it for that. Agreed. I changed that before pushing. > I took a quick look through the patch, and I think it's okay > implementation-wise, though personally I'd have used some less > generic name than "pair" for the variables. I changed it to error_context_name_and_value.
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: