Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 4:51 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Amit Langote wrote: > > > >> diff --git a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c > >> b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c > >> index 1c219b03dd..6a179596ce 100644 > >> --- a/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c > >> +++ b/src/backend/commands/tablecmds.c > >> @@ -13297,8 +13297,10 @@ ATExecAttachPartition(List **wqueue, Relation > >> rel, PartitionCmd *cmd) > >> } > >> } > >> > >> + /* It's safe to skip the validation scan after all */ > >> if (skip_validate) > >> - elog(NOTICE, "skipping scan to validate partition > >> constraint"); > >> + ereport(INFO, > >> + (errmsg("skipping scan to validate partition > >> constraint"))); > > > > Why not just remove the message altogether? > > That's certainly an option. It might be noise in some situations. On > the other hand, it affects whether attaching the partition is O(1) or > O(n), so somebody might well want to know. Or maybe they might be > more likely to want a message in the reverse situation, telling them > that the partition constraint DOES need to be validated. I'm not sure > what the best user interface is here; thoughts welcome.
Even if we decide to keep the message, I think it's not very good wording anyhow; as a translator I disliked it on sight. Instead of "skipping scan to validate" I would use "skipping validation scan", except that it's not clear what it is we're validating. Mentioning partition constraint in errcontext() doesn't like a great solution, but I can't think of anything better. (We have the table_rewrite event trigger, for a very similar use case.) -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers