Обсуждение: Trivial heap_finish_speculative() error message inaccuracy

While auditing the access method code associated with ON CONFLICT DO
UPDATE's speculative insertion infrastructure, I noticed an
inaccuracy.

Attached patch fixes the trivial inaccuracy in a defensive elog()
call. Quite simply, this call site didn't get the memo when we renamed
that function during the late stages of development.

--
Peter Geoghegan

Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> While auditing the access method code associated with ON CONFLICT DO
> UPDATE's speculative insertion infrastructure, I noticed an
> inaccuracy.

> Attached patch fixes the trivial inaccuracy in a defensive elog()
> call. Quite simply, this call site didn't get the memo when we renamed
> that function during the late stages of development.

This seems like a fine teaching moment in which to point out our
longstanding error message style guideline that says not to put
names of C functions into error messages in the first place.
        regards, tom lane

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> This seems like a fine teaching moment in which to point out our
> longstanding error message style guideline that says not to put
> names of C functions into error messages in the first place.

I don't ordinarily do that, of course, but I thought it was important
to be consistent with other such elog() calls within heapam.c. I think
that there at least 10 that look like this.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

On 2015-11-03 19:14:44 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > This seems like a fine teaching moment in which to point out our
> > longstanding error message style guideline that says not to put
> > names of C functions into error messages in the first place.
> 
> I don't ordinarily do that, of course, but I thought it was important
> to be consistent with other such elog() calls within heapam.c.

Internal, super unlikely, elog()s don't seem to need much consistency
among themselves.

> I think that there at least 10 that look like this.

Let's rather rip those function names out. Unless somebody protests I'm
going to do so in 9.5/master.

Andres

On 2015-11-18 23:50:30 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> Let's rather rip those function names out. Unless somebody protests I'm
> going to do so in 9.5/master.

Done.