On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 4:47 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.
Done. Apologies for the delay.
> 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.
Agreed. I changed that before pushing.
> 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.
I changed it to error_context_name_and_value.
