Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:04:14AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The extra appearance of "parallel worker" seems a bit redundant,
>> though I don't know if we can get rid of it.
>>
>> Could we at least be consistent about whether the context is
>> "parallel worker" or "parallel worker process"?
> Indeed. My vote would be to back-patch that stuff.
After thinking about it some more: can't we just make the new context
message be
CONTEXT: while setting parameter "x" to "y"
full stop? The outer context line about "parallel worker" should
be enough for that. As a bonus, if we ever decide that such a
context line would be useful for all GUC errors, we wouldn't need
a different spelling of it for that.
I took a quick look through the patch, and I think it's okay
implementation-wise, though personally I'd have used some less
generic name than "pair" for the variables.
regards, tom lane
