Re: A doubt about a newly added errdetail - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kyotaro Horiguchi
Subject Re: A doubt about a newly added errdetail
Date
Msg-id 20220928.150034.1325913962801104491.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A doubt about a newly added errdetail  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: A doubt about a newly added errdetail
List pgsql-hackers
At Tue, 27 Sep 2022 12:19:35 +0200, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote in 
> Yeah, since you're changing another word in that line, it's ok to move
> the parameter line off-string.  (If you were only changing the parameter
> to %s and there was no message duplication, I would reject the patch as
> useless.)

I'm fine with that. By the way, related to the area, I found the
following error messages.

>     errmsg("publication \"%s\" is defined as FOR ALL TABLES",
>            NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
>     errdetail("Schemas cannot be added to or dropped from FOR ALL TABLES publications.")));

It looks tome that the errmsg and errordetail are reversed. Isn't the following order common?

>     errmsg("schemas cannot be added to or dropped from publication \"%s\".",
>            NameStr(pubform->pubname)),
>     errdetail("The publication is defined as FOR ALL TABLES.")));

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com"
Date:
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Use indexes on the subscriber when REPLICA IDENTITY is full on the publisher
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Use pg_pwritev_with_retry() instead of write() in dir_open_for_write() to avoid partial writes?