PG13: message style changes
I propose to apply the following changes to messages in pg13.
In 0001, I propose changing messages that were introduced as different
for parallel vacuum workers. Frankly I don't understand why we are
bragging about the vacuum being done in a parallel worker; does the user
care? It seems to me that users are just satisfied to know that the
indexes were scanned; the fact that this was done in a parallel worker
is not of much interest, so why call attention to that? Therefore, we
can reduce the message to what's emitted in the normal case.
In 0002, I propose to remove the word "concurrently" in an error
message when an invalid index cannot be reindexed. In fact, the problem
is generic: we just cannot reindex the index at all, regardless of
concurrently or not. So we can reduce this message to be identical to
the one we throw in the non-concurrent case.
(Dropped 0003 while composing this email.)
Patch 0004 just adds a comment to clarify a message that I found
confusing when doing the translation.
--
�lvaro Herrera 39�49'30"S 73�17'W
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:49:43AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
In 0001, I propose changing messages that were introduced as different
for parallel vacuum workers. Frankly I don't understand why we are
bragging about the vacuum being done in a parallel worker; does the user
care? It seems to me that users are just satisfied to know that the
indexes were scanned; the fact that this was done in a parallel worker
is not of much interest, so why call attention to that? Therefore, we
can reduce the message to what's emitted in the normal case.
Indeed. Worth noting also that one can get the same level of
information with %P in log_line_prefix.
In 0002, I propose to remove the word "concurrently" in an error
message when an invalid index cannot be reindexed. In fact, the problem
is generic: we just cannot reindex the index at all, regardless of
concurrently or not. So we can reduce this message to be identical to
the one we throw in the non-concurrent case.
No issues from me here.
Patch 0004 just adds a comment to clarify a message that I found
confusing when doing the translation.
+1.
--
Michael