Message-ID: <8fa16ea7-09a1-4ec2-b668-1e36d4c8ace4@proxel.se>
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2026 13:39:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: not fully correct error message
To: Marcos Pegoraro <marcos@f10.com.br>,
 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: jian he <jian.universality@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
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>
From: Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CAB-JLwZGsWHcK3tnD-uUZf=QTRC0NJQ7qxdQrDYk2b_uFPTaww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/8fa16ea7-09a1-4ec2-b668-1e36d4c8ace4%40proxel.se>
Precedence: bulk

On 1/3/26 1:22 PM, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Em sáb., 3 de jan. de 2026 às 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 ?

Maybe out of some kind of correctness, but it seems less useful to me 
since the obvious question an end user would ask after trying to run 
VACUUM in a function is if they can do so in a procedure instead so we 
may as well tell them right away.

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.

Andreas