Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 23:29:37 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Inconsistent error message wording for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Message-ID: <20190620032936.GA28895@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20190527080235.GA25901@paquier.xyz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-May-27, Michael Paquier wrote:

> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:20:58AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> > I notice your patch changes "catalog relations" to "system catalogs".
> > I think we predominantly prefer the latter, so that part of your change
> > seems OK.  (In passing, I noticed we have a couple of places using
> > "system catalog tables", which is weird.)
> 
> Good point.  These are not new though, so I would prefer not touch
> those parts for this patch.

Sure.

> > We do have "is not yet implemented" in a
> > couple of other places, so all things considered I'm not so sure about
> > changing that one to "cannot".
> 
> Okay.  I can live with this difference.  Not changing the string in
> ReindexRelationConcurrently() has the merit to be consistent with the
> existing ones in reindex_relation() and ReindexPartitionedIndex().
> Please find attached an updated version.  What do you think?

Looks good.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services