Hi,
On 22/01/14 14:45, Tom Lane 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.
Best regards,
--
Christian Kruse http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services