On 2020-May-26, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 06:29:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > Perhaps you are right though, and that we don't need to spend this > > much energy into improving the error messages so I am fine to discard > > this part. At the end, in order to remove the crashes, you just need > > to keep around the two RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE() checks. But I would > > rather keep these two to use ereport(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED) > > instead of elog(), and keep the test coverage of the previous patch > > (including the tests for the aggregates I noticed were missing). > > Would you be fine with that? > > And this means the attached. Thoughts are welcome.
Yeah, this looks good to me. I would have used elog() instead, but I don't care enough ... as a translator, I can come up with a message as undecipherable as the original without worrying too much, since I suspect nobody will ever see it in practice. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
