Re: not fully correct error message

On 1/3/26 1:22 PM, Marcos Pegoraro wrote:
> Em sáb., 3 de jan. de 2026 às 03:35, Pavel Stehule 
> <pavel.stehule@gmail.com <mailto:pavel.stehule@gmail.com>> escreveu:
> 
>     here is a patch (with small regress test)
> 
> 
> An anonymous block doesn't accept vacuum too.
> Wouldn't it be better to specify what kind of block you are running 
> instead of
> function, procedure or anonymous block ?

Maybe out of some kind of correctness, but it seems less useful to me 
since the obvious question an end user would ask after trying to run 
VACUUM in a function is if they can do so in a procedure instead so we 
may as well tell them right away.

A potential third option would be to take your solution but to add a 
HINT about that it needs to run as a top-level statement outside any 
transactions, but I kinda liked how simple the original patch was.

Andreas