On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 5:12 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert Haas <[email protected]> writes: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 4:01 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The primary error message is not varying, only the DETAIL/HINT, so > >> I find this concern pretty far-fetched. Also, I believe that the > >> case that the message intends to help with is very common and so > >> it will save a lot of people time, more than enough to outweigh > >> any cases where it's perhaps un-optimal. > > > I'm not entirely convinced, but you could well be right. I do like all > > the other detailed diagnostics, I think, I just wasn't sure about that > > one. But I'm not really here to argue, just giving my opinion. > > Fair enough. Again, how shall we proceed? What I suggest is to > go ahead and push what I have, and if there's anything that's not > so great, hopefully we'll get feedback about it before v19 is > frozen.
Seems reasonable. I don't see that anyone is strongly objecting. In fact, I think everyone who has commented has been generally in favor, just with various minor concerns here and there. And it's certainly better to put stuff that might need some fine-tuning into the tree sooner rather than later. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
