On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:40 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> >
> > On 9/23/21, 11:26 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote:
> > > On 2021-Sep-23, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 9/22/21 20:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Sep 23, 20
On 10/18/21, 3:31 AM, "Amit Kapila" wrote:
> I can take care of backpatching this in the next few days unless there
> is any objection.
Thanks!
Nathan
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 3:40 AM Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>
> On 9/23/21, 11:26 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote:
> > On 2021-Sep-23, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/22/21 20:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:06 AM Jeremy Schneider
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Any cha
On 9/23/21, 11:26 AM, "Alvaro Herrera" wrote:
> On 2021-Sep-23, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>
>> On 9/22/21 20:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:06 AM Jeremy Schneider
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Any chance of back-patching this?
>> >
>> > Normally, we don't back-patch code impr
On 2021-Sep-23, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> On 9/22/21 20:11, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:06 AM Jeremy Schneider
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Any chance of back-patching this?
> >
> > Normally, we don't back-patch code improvements unless they fix some
> > bug or avoid future ba
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:06 AM Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>
> On 9/21/21 20:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On 9/20/21 22:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> Attached please find the patch which just modifies the current error
> message as proposed by you. I am planning to commit it in a day or two
> unless there
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 2:17 AM Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>
> On 9/20/21 22:14, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 10:53 AM Amit Kapila
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think it is a bad idea to print additional information as you
> >> are suggesting but why only for this error? It could b
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 10:53 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I don't think it is a bad idea to print additional information as you
> are suggesting but why only for this error? It could be useful to
> investigate any other error we get during decoding. I think normally
> we add such additional informat
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 6:14 AM Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>
> On 7/2/21 18:57, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
>
> The process of trying to understand this recent incident has given me some
> new insight about what information would be helpful up front in this error
> message for faster resolution.
>
> Fi
"Schneider (AWS), Jeremy" writes:
>> On Jul 1, 2021, at 18:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I wonder why
>> print the parent's OID, when we have access to its name.
> Seems like a few people do schema-based multi-tenancy with similarly named
> relations in different namespaces, so I’d have a prefere
> On Jul 1, 2021, at 18:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> But I wonder why
> print the parent's OID, when we have access to its name.
Seems like a few people do schema-based multi-tenancy with similarly named
relations in different namespaces, so I’d have a preference for OID over an
unqualified relat
Jeremy Schneider writes:
> Nonetheless, in the process of troubleshooting it occurred to me that
> this error message would be more useful in general if it included the
> base relation OID in the error message. Amit suggested a separate thread
> - so here we are. :)
> Anyone have thoughts? Would
12 matches
Mail list logo
