Dear Horiguchi-san,
I really appreciate your post-commit reviewing.
> However, the existing message for the same situation is written
> without "The value of" at the beginning.
Right. To clarify, max_slot_wal_keep_size has similar check hook which rejects
the upgrade mode, and it starts with "\"
Hello, (this mail is not a duplicate sent by mistake.)
The recent commit ac0e33136ab introduced the following message:
+ GUC_check_errdetail("The value of \"%s\" must be set to 0 during binary
upgrade mode.",
However, the existing message for the same situation is written
without "The val
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:42:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Keeping it simple.. I agree that your suggestions and your two
> patches make things better, so OK for me. There may be a point in
> backpatching as this is user-visible? Perhaps not.
Done that as f2e4c2b2039e.
--
Michael
sign
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:32:40AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> I found that a recent commit (fc069a3a631) introduced an inconsistent
> description for a new GUC variable, enable_self_join_elimination. It
> is written as "Enable removal of unique self-joins.", whereas similar
> variables use "
Hello.
I found that a recent commit (fc069a3a631) introduced an inconsistent
description for a new GUC variable, enable_self_join_elimination. It
is written as "Enable removal of unique self-joins.", whereas similar
variables use "Enables xxx". The attached first patch makes the
message consistent
