Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 18:11:55 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
	Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: logicalrep_message_type throws an error
Message-ID: <20230705161155.repwy2tgvir2hcbr@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <f851860d-566a-4334-8a41-5a6b47041a4b@app.fastmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230705161155.repwy2tgvir2hcbr%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2023-Jul-05, Euler Taveira wrote:

> Isn't this numerical value already exposed in the error message (X = 88)?
> In this example, it is:
> 
> ERROR:  invalid logical replication message type "X"
> CONTEXT:  processing remote data for replication origin "pg_16638" during message type "??? (88)" in transaction 796, finished at 0/1626698
> 
> IMO it could be confusing if we provide two representations of the same data (X
> and 88). Since we already provide "X" I don't think we need "88". Another
> option, is to remove "X" from apply_dispatch() and add "??? (88)" to 
> logicalrep_message_type().
> 
> Opinions?

The CONTEXT message could theoretically appear in other error throws,
not just in "invalid logical replication message".  So the duplicity is
not really a problem.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Now I have my system running, not a byte was off the shelf;
It rarely breaks and when it does I fix the code myself.
It's stable, clean and elegant, and lightning fast as well,
And it doesn't cost a nickel, so Bill Gates can go to hell."