On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 3:03 PM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 11:30 AM vignesh C <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 6 May 2026 at 09:27, Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 5:56 PM Euler Taveira <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2026, at 7:42 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 4:02 PM Dilip Kumar <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Now, we also need to decide whether to backpatch the relevant > > > > >> > change > > > > >> > to back-branches. It seems we didn't get the bug-report yet but > > > > >> > clearly what we do currently is not correct. So, we should ideally > > > > >> > backpatch it and in the back branches we don't need to expose it. > > > > >> > OTOH, as it is reported and is not a big issue, so we can keep > > > > >> > this as > > > > >> > a HEAD only change as well. If we want to keep this as a HEAD only > > > > >> > change then shall we wait for PG20 branch to open or go for current > > > > >> > HEAD itself? What do you and or others think on this matter? > > > > >> > > > > >> I think we should apply in PG19. Although back-patching isn't > > > > >> critical, since we already have an opportunity to fix it in PG19, why > > > > >> not push it early? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I also think we should push it for PG19 especially because the EXCEPT > > > > > feature increased the usage of relation names without schema-name in > > > > > error messages. However, as we are past feature freeze, I wanted to > > > > > know the opinion of others as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -1 for backpatching. > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > These messages (without schema qualification) has been > > > > like this since the beginning. The function was not introduced by > > > > fd366065e06a > > > > and the proposed patch are changing existing messages as well. It is a > > > > good > > > > idea to keep visible messages (WARNING, ERROR, FATAL, PANIC) consistent > > > > so as > > > > not to break log analysis tools. > > > > > > > > I would say the target is v20. However, as Amit said, the change to the > > > > EXCEPT > > > > clause message might be important, so I suggest changing it; I would > > > > leave the > > > > other messages for the RMT to decide. > > > > > > > > > > Okay, then we can split the patch into two, the first patch to make > > > the required changes only for EXCEPT, and the second one for the > > > remaining pre-existing messages. We can push the first patch in HEAD > > > and wait for some more opinions on the second one. > > > > The updated patch has the changes to split it. > > > > Thanks Vignesh. > > +/* > + * get_qualified_relname > + * Get a palloc'd string containing the schema-qualified name of the relation > + * for the given namespace ID and relation name. > + */ > +char * > +get_qualified_relname(Oid nspid, char *relname) > > I think, instead of get_qualified_relname(), we should have generic > get_qualified_objname(), so that others can also use it. >
That makes sense. I have changed that in the attached and made slight modifications in the comments. How about attached? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
v6-0001-Include-schema-qualified-names-in-EXCEPT-clause-e.patch
Description: Binary data
