Thread: Typo in "43.9.1. Reporting Errors and Messages"?

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/14/plpgsql-errors-and-messages.html
Description:

Towards the end of the "43.9.1. Reporting Errors and Messages" section (here
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/plpgsql-errors-and-messages.html#PLPGSQL-STATEMENTS-RAISE)
we have the following sentence:

> If no condition name nor SQLSTATE is specified in a RAISE EXCEPTION
command, the default is to use ERRCODE_RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001).

Looking at the list of error codes (here
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/errcodes-appendix.html) I think the
"ERRCODE_RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001)" is a typo and should remove "ERRCODE_" and
simply read "RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001)" or perhaps "ERRCODE =
'RAISE_EXCEPTION'" since that's how the default behaviour would be written
in a RAISE statement.

Many thanks,
Eric Mutta.

Hello!

I've come across some typos in protocol.sgml for PostgreSQL 15 so please 
have a look at the attached patch.

I didn't include it in the patch but I also suggest removing single 
quotes around 'method' for the COMPRESSION option to help avoid 
confusion. (All the supported compression methods consist of a single 
word so in my opinion there is no need to use quotes in this case.)
-- <term><literal>COMPRESSION</literal> 
<replaceable>'method'</replaceable></term>

I've also noticed that there are two ways to describe an option: "If set 
to true" / "If true". As far as I know, the option here is specified by 
its name rather than being explicitly set to true so "if true" seems to 
be more correct, and this could be a slight improvement for this page. 
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Another point worth mentioning is that only this file contains the 
phrase "two-phase transaction". I believe that "two-phase commit 
transaction" or "transaction prepared for two-phase commit" depending on 
the situation would be better wording.

And finally, could you please clarify this part?
-- The end LSN of the prepare transaction.
Is it a typo of "prepared transaction"? Or is it the LSN of the 
transaction for Prepare?
If it's the latter, perhaps it'd make more sense to capitalize it.

-- 
Best regards,
Ekaterina Kiryanova
Technical Writer
Postgres Professional
the Russian PostgreSQL Company

On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 11:00:20PM +0300, Ekaterina Kiryanova wrote:
> I didn't include it in the patch but I also suggest removing single quotes
> around 'method' for the COMPRESSION option to help avoid confusion. (All the
> supported compression methods consist of a single word so in my opinion
> there is no need to use quotes in this case.)
> -- <term><literal>COMPRESSION</literal>
> <replaceable>'method'</replaceable></term>

Other options use quotes as well in their description in this area.

> I've also noticed that there are two ways to describe an option: "If set to
> true" / "If true". As far as I know, the option here is specified by its
> name rather than being explicitly set to true so "if true" seems to be more
> correct, and this could be a slight improvement for this page. Please
> correct me if I'm wrong.

Both sound pretty much the same to me.

> Another point worth mentioning is that only this file contains the phrase
> "two-phase transaction". I believe that "two-phase commit transaction" or
> "transaction prepared for two-phase commit" depending on the situation would
> be better wording.

"Prepare for two-phase commit" may be clearer?

> And finally, could you please clarify this part?
> -- The end LSN of the prepare transaction.
> Is it a typo of "prepared transaction"? Or is it the LSN of the transaction
> for Prepare?
> If it's the latter, perhaps it'd make more sense to capitalize it.

Hmm.  The internals of 63cf61c refer to a "STREAM PREPARE", still the
protocol docs are quite messy ("prepare", "prepare timestamp", etc.)
so more consistency would be appropriate, it seems.  Amit?

The part for the protocol messages with 2PC and logical replication
could use a larger rework.  I have left these for now, and fixed the
rest of the typos you have found.
--
Michael

Towards the end of the "43.9.1. Reporting Errors and Messages" section (here

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/plpgsql-errors-and-messages.html#PLPGSQL-STATEMENTS-RAISE)

we have the following sentence:

> If no condition name nor SQLSTATE is specified in a RAISE EXCEPTION

command, the default is to use ERRCODE_RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001).

Looking at the list of error codes (here

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/errcodes-appendix.html) I think the

"ERRCODE_RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001)" is a typo and should remove "ERRCODE_" and

simply read "RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001)" or perhaps "ERRCODE =

'RAISE_EXCEPTION'" since that's how the default behaviour would be written

in a RAISE statement.

On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> PSA a patch to modify the descriptions as suggested by Amit.
>

*
<para>
-         The end LSN of the commit prepared transaction.
+         The end LSN of the commit of the prepared transaction.
...
...
-         Identifies the message as the commit of a two-phase
transaction message.
+         Identifies the message as the commit of a prepared
transaction message.

In the above messages, we can even directly say "commit prepared
transaction" but as you have written appears clear to me.

*
For timestamp, related messages, we have three different messages:
Commit timestamp of the transaction. The value is in number of
microseconds since PostgreSQL epoch (2000-01-01).
Prepare timestamp of the transaction. The value is in number of
microseconds since PostgreSQL epoch (2000-01-01).
Rollback timestamp of the transaction. The value is in number of
microseconds since PostgreSQL epoch (2000-01-01).

We can improve by saying "Timestamp of prepared transaction" for the
second one but it will make it bit inconsistent with others, so not
sure if changing it makes sense or if there is a better way to change
all the three messages.

Thoughts?


-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

On Thu, Aug 4, 2022 at 1:04 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 10:56 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > PSA a patch to modify the descriptions as suggested by Amit.
> >
>
> *
> <para>
> -         The end LSN of the commit prepared transaction.
> +         The end LSN of the commit of the prepared transaction.
> ...
> ...
> -         Identifies the message as the commit of a two-phase
> transaction message.
> +         Identifies the message as the commit of a prepared
> transaction message.
>
> In the above messages, we can even directly say "commit prepared
> transaction" but as you have written appears clear to me.
>
> *
> For timestamp, related messages, we have three different messages:
> Commit timestamp of the transaction. The value is in number of
> microseconds since PostgreSQL epoch (2000-01-01).
> Prepare timestamp of the transaction. The value is in number of
> microseconds since PostgreSQL epoch (2000-01-01).
> Rollback timestamp of the transaction. The value is in number of
> microseconds since PostgreSQL epoch (2000-01-01).
>
> We can improve by saying "Timestamp of prepared transaction" for the
> second one but it will make it bit inconsistent with others, so not
> sure if changing it makes sense or if there is a better way to change
> all the three messages.
>
> Thoughts?
>

There was no feedback for Amit's previous post [1], so I am just
attaching the same [2] patch again, but this time for both HEAD and
REL_15_STABLE.

------
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1LHSDb3KVRZZnYeBF0-SodMKYP%3DV%2B2VmrVBvRNK%3Dej1Tw%40mail.gmail.com
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPs8TLKFL0P4ghgERdTcDeB4y61zWm128524h88BhnYmfA%40mail.gmail.com

Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia

On Tue, Aug  2, 2022 at 09:49:47AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, at 8:37 PM, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> 
>     Towards the end of the "43.9.1. Reporting Errors and Messages" section
>     (here
>     https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/plpgsql-errors-and-messages.html#
>     PLPGSQL-STATEMENTS-RAISE)
>     we have the following sentence:
> 
>     > If no condition name nor SQLSTATE is specified in a RAISE EXCEPTION
>     command, the default is to use ERRCODE_RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001).
> 
>     Looking at the list of error codes (here
>     https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/errcodes-appendix.html) I think the
>     "ERRCODE_RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001)" is a typo and should remove "ERRCODE_"
>     and
>     simply read "RAISE_EXCEPTION (P0001)" or perhaps "ERRCODE =
>     'RAISE_EXCEPTION'" since that's how the default behaviour would be written
>     in a RAISE statement.
> 
> It is referring to the internal constant (see src/backend/utils/errcodes.h). It
> was like you are proposing and it was changed in
> 66bde49d96a9ddacc49dcbdf1b47b5bd6e31ead5. Reading the original thread, there is
> no explanation why it was changed. Refer to internal names is not good for a
> user-oriented text. I think it would be better to use the condition name (in
> lowercase) like it is referred to in [1]. I mean, change
> ERRCODE_RAISE_EXCEPTION to raise_exception.
> 
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/errcodes-appendix.html

Alexander, Michael, can you explain why this commit removed ERRCODE_:

    commit 66bde49d96
    Author: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
    Date:   Tue Aug 13 13:53:41 2019 +0900
    
        Fix inconsistencies and typos in the tree, take 10
    
        This addresses some issues with unnecessary code comments, fixes various
        typos in docs and comments, and removes some orphaned structures and
        definitions.
    
        Author: Alexander Lakhin
        Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9aabc775-5494-b372-8bcb-4dfc0bd37c68@gmail.com


-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Only you can decide what is important to you.

Hi Bruce,

31.10.2023 17:52, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> It is referring to the internal constant (see src/backend/utils/errcodes.h). It
>> was like you are proposing and it was changed in
>> 66bde49d96a9ddacc49dcbdf1b47b5bd6e31ead5. Reading the original thread, there is
>> no explanation why it was changed. Refer to internal names is not good for a
>> user-oriented text. I think it would be better to use the condition name (in
>> lowercase) like it is referred to in [1]. I mean, change
>> ERRCODE_RAISE_EXCEPTION to raise_exception.
>>
>> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/errcodes-appendix.html
> Alexander, Michael, can you explain why this commit removed ERRCODE_:
>
>     commit 66bde49d96

I don't remember details, but I think the primary reason for the change
was that "RAISE_EXCEPTION" occurred in the whole tree only once (before
66bde49d96). Now I see, that I had chosen the wrong replacement — I agree
with Euler, change to "raise_exception" would be more appropriate.

(I've found a similar mention of ERRCODE_xxx in btree.sgml:
   Before doing so, the function should check the sign
   of <replaceable>offset</replaceable>: if it is less than zero, raise
   error <literal>ERRCODE_INVALID_PRECEDING_OR_FOLLOWING_SIZE</literal> (22013)
   with error text like <quote>invalid preceding or following size in window
   function</quote>.
but I think that's okay here, because that identifier supposed to be used
as-is in ereport/elog.)

Best regards,
Alexander

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 09:00:00PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> I don't remember details, but I think the primary reason for the change
> was that "RAISE_EXCEPTION" occurred in the whole tree only once (before
> 66bde49d96). Now I see, that I had chosen the wrong replacement — I agree
> with Euler, change to "raise_exception" would be more appropriate.

Indeed, it looks like the origin of the confusion is the casing here,
so changing to "raise_exception" like in the appendix sounds good to
me:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/errcodes-appendix.html

So you mean something like the attached then?

> (I've found a similar mention of ERRCODE_xxx in btree.sgml:
>   Before doing so, the function should check the sign
>   of <replaceable>offset</replaceable>: if it is less than zero, raise
>   error <literal>ERRCODE_INVALID_PRECEDING_OR_FOLLOWING_SIZE</literal> (22013)
>   with error text like <quote>invalid preceding or following size in window
>   function</quote>.
> but I think that's okay here, because that identifier supposed to be used
> as-is in ereport/elog.)

Yep, still this one is not that old (0a459cec96d3).
--
Michael

On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 09:18:47AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> So you mean something like the attached then?

Fixed that with f8b96c211da0 down to 11, in time for next week's
release set.
--
Michael