On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > <fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:15 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello > >> <fabriziomello@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 11:44:37AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> >> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > >> >> > > The idea is that we only need quotes when there are odd characters > >> >> > > in > >> >> > > the identifier. We do that right now in some places, though I > >> >> > > can't > >> >> > > find them in pg_dump. I know psql does that, see quote_ident(). > >> >> > > >> >> > I think our general style rule is that identifiers embedded in > >> >> > messages > >> >> > are always double-quoted. There's an exception for type names, but > >> >> > not otherwise. You're confusing the message case with printing SQL. > >> >> > >> >> OK. I was unclear if a status _display_ was a message like an error > >> >> message. > >> >> > >> > > >> > The attached patch fix missing double-quoted in "dumping contents of > >> > table.." message and add schema name to other messages: > >> > - "reading indexes for table \"%s\".\"%s\"\n" > >> > - "reading foreign key constraints for table \"%s\".\"%s\"\n" > >> > - "reading triggers for table \"%s\".\"%s\"\n" > >> > > >> > - "finding the columns and types of table \"%s\".\"%s\"\n" > >> > - "finding default expressions of table \"%s\".\"%s\"\n" > >> > - "finding check constraints for table \"%s\".\"%s\"\n" > >> Cool additions. There may be a more elegant way to check if namespace > >> is NULL, but I couldn't come up with one myself. So patch may be fine. > >> > > > > Hi all, > > > > I think this small patch was lost. There are something wrong? > > Did it get added to a CommitFest? > > I don't see it there. >
Given this is a very small and simple patch I thought it's not necessary...
