Hello. At Wed, 6 Nov 2019 20:13:10 +0900, Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fuj...@gmail.com> wrote in > Hi Michael-san, > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:35 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:12:04PM +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 1:13 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> > > > wrote: > > >> "postgres_fdw foreign tables" sounds weird to me. Could "foreign > > >> tables using postgres_fdw" be a better wording? I am wondering as > > >> well if we should not split this information into two parts: one for > > >> the actual error message which only mentions foreign tables, and a > > >> second one with a hint to mention that postgres_fdw has been used. > > > > > > We use "postgres_fdw foreign tables" or "postgres_fdw tables" in > > > release notes, so I thought it was OK to use that in error messages as > > > well. But actually, these wordings are not suitable for error > > > messages? > > > > It is true that the docs of postgres_fdw use that and that it is used > > in some comments. Still, I found this wording a bit weird.. If you > > think that what you have is better, I am also fine to let you have the > > final word, so please feel to ignore me :) > > I'd like to hear the opinions of others.
FWIW, I see it a bit weird, too. And perhaps "prepare" should be in upper case letters. Plus, any operation including a SELECT on a temporary table inhibits PREAPRE TRANSACTION, but the same on a postgres_fdw foreign tables is not. So the error message is rather wrong. A verbose alternative can be: "cannot PREPARE a transaction that has modified data on foreign tables using postgres_fdw" Or I think different style is OK here since the message is not of core but of an extension. "postgres_fdw doesn't support PREPARE of a transaction that has modified data on foreign tables" That could be shorter or simpler, of course. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
