Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christoph Berg
Subject Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF"
Date
Msg-id Z-vwKRcOKV93We_k@msg.df7cb.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF"  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Better HINT message for "unexpected data beyond EOF"
List pgsql-hackers
Re: Robert Haas
> > Another question is should we back-patch this? I believe we should (?)
> 
> I don't think this qualifies as a bug. The current wording isn't
> factually wrong, just unhelpful. Even if it were wrong, we need a
> pretty good reason to change message strings in a stable branch,
> because that can break things for users who are grepping for the
> current string (or a translation thereof). If an overwhelming
> consensus in favor of back-patching emerges, fine, but my gut feeling
> is that back-patching will make more people sad than it makes happy.

It's only the HINT part. If I were to grep/search for the message, I
would definitely use the message part.

Christoph



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: Using read stream in autoprewarm
Next
From: torikoshia
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query