On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 1:14 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Hmm, I think you went a bit too far here. The existing code intends > to draw a distinction between "not recognized" (i.e., "we don't know > what that word was you used") and "not supported" (i.e., "we know > that word, but it doesn't seem to make sense in context, or we > haven't got round to the case yet"). You've mashed those into the > same error text, which I don't think we should do, especially > since we're using distinct ERRCODE values for them.
Oops. I noticed that "inconsistency" between ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED and ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE and then promptly blazed past it. Thanks for catching that. > Attached v3 restores that distinction, and makes some other small > tweaks. (I found that there were actually a couple of spots in > date.c that got it backwards, so admittedly this is a fine point > that not everybody is on board with. But let's make it consistent > now.) LGTM too, for whatever that's worth.
