All,
* Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net) wrote:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@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
