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.
That said, it seems likely we'll be doing a more thorough review and
update of error messages for 9.5 (if others agree with my up-thread
proposal), such that these changes would be minor additional ones.
Thoughts? I don't have a preference either way, which makes me lean
towards not messing with 9.4, but wanted to bring it up.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
