From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        pavel.stehule@gmail.com, a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru,
        pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_get_functiondef forgets about most GUC_LIST_INPUT GUCs
In-reply-to: <20180322012038.GB2490@paquier.xyz>
References: <2637.1521501336@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180320003951.GA4963@paquier.xyz> <10037.1521515233@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20180320.123747.43512160.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
 <32403.1521566855@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180321050103.GD2288@paquier.xyz>
 <22579.1521610823@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180322012038.GB2490@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Thu, 22 Mar 2018 10:20:39 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <27989.1521682031.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:27:11 -0400
Message-ID: <27990.1521682031@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 01:40:23AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't mind making it an ereport, but I think it needs to be FATAL
>> for the reason stated in the comment.

> Okay for the FATAL.  I can see that at this time of the day your patch
> 0002 has already been pushed as 846b5a5 with an elog().  Still, it seems
> to me that this is not an internal error but an error caused by an
> external cause which can be user-visible, so I would push forward with
> switching it to an ereport().

Well, after some consideration I pushed it like that because it's not
really a user-facing error but a developer-facing error.  Should we ask
translators to spend time on that message?  I doubt it.  Also, the
adjacent test to refuse PGC_POSTMASTER variables is just an elog;
that seems like pretty much the same sort of situation, and nobody's
complained about it.

If we do something here we should change both of those calls, but
I really doubt it's worth the effort.

			regards, tom lane