From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
cc: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>,
        Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
        jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: not fully correct error message
In-reply-to: <8fa16ea7-09a1-4ec2-b668-1e36d4c8ace4@proxel.se>
References: <CAFj8pRCveWPR06bbad9GnMb0Kcr6jnXPttv9XOaOB+oFCD1Tsg@mail.gmail.com> <CACJufxEOQ+2=L3aLBzW6A4vu75gN7vKw07+QgU_398Avqb5KTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFj8pRBoybDsAZdQJ3nz=E1uCSu3Buoa+VXM8wnwy6ixKqzYxA@mail.gmail.com> <CAB-JLwZGsWHcK3tnD-uUZf=QTRC0NJQ7qxdQrDYk2b_uFPTaww@mail.gmail.com> <8fa16ea7-09a1-4ec2-b668-1e36d4c8ace4@proxel.se>
Comments: In-reply-to Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
	message dated "Sat, 03 Jan 2026 13:39:28 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <409107.1767463422.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2026 13:03:42 -0500
Message-ID: <409108.1767463422@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/409108.1767463422%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se> writes:
> On 1/3/26 1:22 PM, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
>> Em s=C3=A1b., 3 de jan. de 2026 =C3=A0s 03:35, Pavel Stehule =

>> <pavel.stehule@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com>> escreveu:
>>> here is a patch (with small regress test)

>> An anonymous block doesn't accept vacuum too.
>> Wouldn't it be better to specify what kind of block you are running =

>> instead of function, procedure or anonymous block ?

I don't think PreventInTransactionBlock has ready access to that
information.

> A potential third option would be to take your solution but to add a =

> HINT about that it needs to run as a top-level statement outside any =

> transactions, but I kinda liked how simple the original patch was.

Yeah, I like just adding "or procedure" and calling it good.
I do not think we need a regression test, either ...

Poking around, I also found this:

src/backend/commands/wait.c:                              errdetail("WAIT =
FOR cannot be executed from a function or a procedure or within a transact=
ion with an isolation level higher than READ COMMITTED."));

which is also not great grammar.  What do you think of "WAIT FOR
cannot be executed from a function or procedure, nor within a
transaction with an isolation level higher than READ COMMITTED." ?

			regards, tom lane