On 2014-10-28 09:43:35 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > All, > > * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > > > > As I started looking at this, there are multiple other places where > > > > these types of error messages occur (opclasscmds.c, user.c, > > > > postinit.c, miscinit.c are just a few), not just around the changes in > > > > this patch. If we change them in one place, wouldn't it be best to > > > > change them in the rest? If that is the case, I'm afraid that might > > > > distract from the purpose of this patch. Perhaps, if we want to > > > > change them, then that should be submitted as a separate patch? > > > > > > Yeah. I'm just saying that maybe this patch should adopt whatever > > > wording we agree to, not that we need to change other places. On the > > > other hand, since so many other places have adopted the different > > > wording, maybe there's a reason for it and if so, does anybody know what > > > it is. But I have to say that it does look inconsistent to me. > > > > Updated patch attached. Comments welcome. > > Looking over this again, I had another thought about it- given that this > changes the error messages returned for replication slots, which are new > in 9.4, should it be back-patched to 9.4? Otherwise we'll put 9.4 > out and then immediately change these error messages in 9.5.
-1. For one I'm less than convinced that the new messages are an improvement. They seem to be more verbose without a corresponding improvement in clarity. For another I don't see any need to rush this into 9.4. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
