pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <dgustafsson@pivotal.io>
Cc: ANASTACIO Tiago <tiago_anastacio@yahoo.fr>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #15726: parallel queries failed ERROR: invalid name syntax CONTEXT: parallel worker
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2019 12:47:49 -0400
Message-ID: <1338.1555087669@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190412033250.GE2144@paquier.xyz>
References: <CA+hUKGKJ-amPMuwFhgc5T6UH=Wcn3CG3gmowmkYqTo2WsQJM4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+hUKGLdzBsa_SZajU8J9JDSHzdU6+LVq1g6bUsekiWBpjVDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH2-Wzkif1R6imAhgcRv1cXqomYBDez9g1rKAhDixiEi7b2KOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1831482307.24522245.1554199154256@mail.yahoo.com>
	<CA+hUKGLvwuKEf_dk-zZANRLGfT9eO5hbKB_+KYeb-Uef_Q7G-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<29888.1554218381@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+hUKGJ=nTwC750vLGtQUGXFHFKxFF31=Qwn=Pd70S4jZanA2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<C6B09DDC-FDDA-466D-AFBD-F8C966CD97C1@pivotal.io>
	<CA+hUKGLftxFoLP6_qH6QnNPogTtOXp7cr+Bv7nV=CABRMWF_PQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<11677.1554995054@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20190412033250.GE2144@paquier.xyz>

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.

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.

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.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (18+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <1338.1555087669@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../1338.1555087669@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/1338.1555087669@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, michael@paquier.xyz, thomas.munro@gmail.com, dgustafsson@pivotal.io, tiago_anastacio@yahoo.fr, pg@bowt.ie, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: BUG #15726: parallel queries failed ERROR: invalid name syntax CONTEXT: parallel worker
  In-Reply-To: <1338.1555087669@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox