On 2026-May-27, Chao Li wrote: > > On May 27, 2026, at 11:06, Baji Shaik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 0001 -- When wal_level < replica, REPACK (CONCURRENTLY) currently > > surfaces generic "replication slots ... wal_level" error > > from CheckSlotRequirements(), with a CONTEXT line referring > > to an internal worker. Add an upfront check that reports a > > REPACK-specific error. > > LGTM Pushed this one earlier. I changed the errcode though, because in my mind "object" is a database object, and the server configuration is not an object. So I used INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE instead. I also don't think it makes sense to say "cannot repack table X", so the user leaves thinking they could repack table Y instead. The whole point being that you cannot vacuum _any_ tables. So I made the errmsg() say that. > When I was working on 832e220d99a, I actually considered for more > detailed error messages, but I ended up giving up. I think we should > be careful about adding more branches here unless the existing message > is causing significant confusion in practice. > > So, I personally don’t like 0002. I'll give this a look after some icecream. > > 0003 -- Four ereport(ERROR) calls in the REPACK CONCURRENTLY code > > path lack errcode() and default to ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR. > > Add appropriate errcodes; in particular, the > > apply_concurrent_update/delete failures map cleanly to > > ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE. Also pushed, with additional editorialization. I have recollections of out message policy saying something about "could not do X" instead of "failed to do X", so I changed it that way. (But I couldn't find that in the style guide.) -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
