On 23/01/14 14:45, Christian Kruse wrote: > > Well, is it context or detail? Those fields have reasonably well > > defined meanings IMO. > > I find the distinction somewhat blurry and think both would be > appropriate. But since I wasn't sure I changed to detail. > > > If we need errcontext_plural, let's add it, not adopt inferior > > solutions just because that isn't there for lack of previous need. > > I would've added it if I would've been sure. > > > But having said that, I think this is indeed detail not context. > > (I kinda wonder whether some of the stuff that's now in the primary > > message shouldn't be pushed to errdetail as well. It looks like some > > previous patches in this area have been lazy.) > > I agree, the primary message is not very well worded. On the other hand > finding an appropriate alternative seems hard for me. > > > While I'm griping, this message isn't even trying to follow the > > project's message style guidelines. Detail or context messages are > > supposed to be complete sentence(s), with capitalization and > punctuation to match. > > Hm, I hope I fixed it in this version of the patch. > > > Lastly, is this information that we want to be shipping to clients? > > Perhaps from a security standpoint that's not such a wise idea, and > > errdetail_log() is what should be used. > > Fixed. I added an errdetail_log_plural() for this, too.
I think you have attached wrong patch. Thanks and Regards, Kumar Rajeev Rastogi -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
