On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 4:20 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 7:38 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > > 1) > > heap_create: > > + errdetail("Conflict schema modifications are currently disallowed."))); > > LookupCreationNamespace: > > + errmsg("cannot move objects into or out of the pg_conflict schema"))); > > > > Can we make it same through-out, either we use 'Conflict schema' at > > both the places or pg_conflict schema. Since in these 2 functions, in > > previous messages, we are using names like 'System catalog', 'TOAST > > schema' etc, I think we can use Conflict schema at both the places. > > What do others think on this? > > > > The suggested name of "Conflict schema" LGTM. My only concern was that > a user may not know where that is referring to. OTOH, things like > "System catalog" have 100s of mentions and whole documentation > chapters dedicated to them. If we go with "Conflict schema", then the > documentation needs to also consistently use that term, describe what > it is for, and make it very easy to look up and discover that > "Conflict schema" is 'pg_conflict'.
I agree that if we use 'Conflict schema' in the error messages, we need to refer it the same way in doc. Let's wait for others' opinions on this too. > > Currently (in patches 0008/9) there is very little explanation even > about what pg_conflict is, apart from just observing in passing that > the CLT gets written to that "dedicated namespace". It seems a bit > backwards describing the parent schema by the contents: Instead of > saying when there is a CLT it gets written there, IMO it should be the > other way around, and say there is a "Conflict schema" which is where > the CLTs (if any) reside. Yes, the suggestion makes sense. I will look at the doc patch again for this. thanks Shveta
