From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: strange error reporting
In-reply-to: <20210120184446.GA22263@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20210120184446.GA22263@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Wed, 20 Jan 2021 15:44:46 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <754448.1611168883.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 13:54:43 -0500
Message-ID: <754449.1611168883@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Jan-20, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I figured it was something like that. I don't know whether the right
>> thing is to use something like PQdb() to get the correct database
>> name, or whether we should go with Tom's suggestion and omit that
>> detail altogether, but I think showing the empty string when the user
>> relied on the default is too confusing.

> Well, the patch seems small enough, and I don't think it'll be in any
> way helpful to omit that detail.

I'm +1 for applying and back-patching that.  I still think we might
want to just drop the phrase altogether in HEAD, but we wouldn't do
that in the back branches, and the message is surely misleading as-is.

			regards, tom lane