On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:14 PM, Amit Langote <langote_amit...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > On 2016/12/21 1:45, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Alvaro Herrera >>> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Maybe something like: partition constraint for table \"%s\" is implied >>> by existing constraints >> >> Actually, shouldn't we emit a message if we *don't* skip the check? > > Scanning (aka, not skipping) to validate the partition constraint is the > default behavior, so a user would be expecting it anyway, IOW, need not be > informed of it. But when ATExecAttachPartition's efforts to avoid the > scan by comparing the partition constraint against existing constraints > (which the user most probably deliberately added just for this) succeed, > that seems like a better piece of information to provide the user with, > IMHO. But then again, having a message printed before a potentially long > validation scan seems like something a user would like to see, to know > what it is that is going to take so long. Hmm. > > Anyway, what would the opposite of Robert's suggested message look like: > "scanning table \"%s\" to validate partition constraint"?
Maybe: partition constraint for table \"%s\" is implied by existing constraints -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
