Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1seMZO-006LKN-H5 for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:34:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1seMZM-00DCqN-Ry for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:34:16 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1seMZM-00DCqF-JF for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:34:16 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1seMZK-004svD-66 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:34:16 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 47EMYAlD335475; Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:34:10 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: David Rowley cc: Peter Smith , exclusion@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #18558: ALTER PUBLICATION fails with unhelpful error on attempt to use system column In-reply-to: References: <18558-411bc81b03592125@postgresql.org> <2455740.1722219823@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2460423.1722222076@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to David Rowley message dated "Thu, 15 Aug 2024 10:28:43 +1200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <335473.1723674850.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 18:34:10 -0400 Message-ID: <335474.1723674850@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk David Rowley writes: > As for this being backpatched or not. For me, about 51% of me thinks > this is fine for a master-only fix. > Does anyone else have any thoughts about back-patching the fix? It does seem mostly cosmetic, since we're just replacing one error message with a better one. regards, tom lane