From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
cc: king tomo <t.katsumata1122@gmail.com>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18224: message bug in libpqwalreceiver.c.
In-reply-to: <C35E2C78-AA74-4115-8A25-A3D425349604@yesql.se>
References: <18224-59c34f71e2c6a5ed@postgresql.org>
 <CAC55fYeoBvYSyRupWEP+BzGwhdi7R7nvPffM7QhQyqDcpedxig@mail.gmail.com>
 <C35E2C78-AA74-4115-8A25-A3D425349604@yesql.se>
Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
	message dated "Mon, 04 Dec 2023 13:12:27 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <750770.1701698849.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2023 09:07:29 -0500
Message-ID: <750771.1701698849@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/750771.1701698849%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> I've changed
> it to add a comment instead which explains why we check for < 3 and writ=
e that
> we expect 4 in the error message.  It could be argued that we should say=
 that
> we expect "3 or more" fields but given the age of the change we clearly =
do
> expect 4 at this point.

I disagree with making this error message lie about what the test was.
Clearly we need to s/3, 1/1, 3/ but I don't think the number should
be different from what we actually allow.

Having said that, maybe there's a case for requiring 4 columns now.
I agree it's pretty unlikely that current releases would see a pre-9.4
server on the other end of the line.

			regards, tom lane