On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 6:54 PM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1...@163.com> wrote:
> > "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 5:46 PM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1...@163.com> wrote: > > > > > Per recent discussion[1], plpgsql returns fairly unhelpful "syntax > > > error" messages when a %TYPE or %ROWTYPE construct references a > > > nonexistent object. Here's a quick little finger exercise to try > > > to improve that. > > > > Looks this modify the error message, I want to know how ould we treat > > error-message-compatible issue during minor / major upgrade. > > > > There is no bug here so no back-patch; and we are not yet past feature > freeze for v17. > > Acutally I didn't asked about back-patch. What else should I be understanding when you write the words "minor upgrade"? > So if the error message is changed, the above code may be broken. > > A fair point to bring up, and is change-specific. User-facing error messages should be informative and where they are not changing them is reasonable. Runtime errors probably need more restraint since they are more likely to be in a production monitoring alerting system but anything that is reporting what amounts to a syntax error should be reasonable to change and not expect people to be writing production code looking for them. This seems to fall firmly into the "badly written code"/syntax category. David J.
