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