On 2024-07-25 22:29 +0200, Tom Lane wrote: > Erik Wienhold <e...@ewie.name> writes: > > Thanks, I didn't know that guideline. Both fixed in v6. > > This still isn't following our usual message style IMO. Here's a > proposed v7 that outputs > > -ERROR: type stuff is not a composite type > +ERROR: type stuff is the row type of another table > +DETAIL: A typed table must use a stand-alone composite type created with > CREATE TYPE. > > I did a bit of copy-editing on the docs changes too. One notable > point is that I dropped the parenthetical bit about "(name optionally > schema-qualified)". That struck me as quite unnecessary, and > it definitely doesn't read well to have two parenthetical comments > in a single four-line sentence.
Works for me. Thanks! -- Erik
