Re: Inaccurate error message when set fdw batch_size to 0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: Inaccurate error message when set fdw batch_size to 0
Date
Msg-id 9d067c33-248d-ae92-b64b-396de500c43e@oss.nttdata.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Inaccurate error message when set fdw batch_size to 0  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Inaccurate error message when set fdw batch_size to 0  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 2021/05/26 15:22, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 2:43 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. That looks better. PSA v4 patch.
> 
> Attaching v5 patch rebased on latest master.

The patch could not be applied cleanly because of recent commit d854720df6.
Could you rebase the patch?

-                       /* these must have a non-negative numeric value */
+                       /* these must have a positive numeric value */

Isn't it better to replace this with "these must have a floating point value
greater than or equal to zero"?

-                                                errmsg("%s requires a non-negative numeric value",
+                                                errmsg("\"%s\" must be a numeric value greater than or equal to
zero",

"numeric" should be "floating point"?

+    <quote>foo must be a numeric value greater than zero</quote> or
+    <quote>foo must be a numeric value greater than or equal to zero</quote>
+    if option <quote>foo</quote> expects a numeric value

Maybe this description about numeric value is redundant
because there is already the description about integer value?

-    /* Number of workers should be non-negative. */

Isn't it better to replace this with "Number of workers should be greater than zero"
rather than removing the comment?

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Outdated replication protocol error?