Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name
Bruce Momjian writes: > I see what you mean. The attached patch fixes this, as well as > adjusting the error message. I didn't see any other cases. I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any other error message. regards, tom lane
Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > I see what you mean. The attached patch fixes this, as well as > > adjusting the error message. I didn't see any other cases. > > I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that > error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any > other error message. What do you suggest? The current message is: Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE. I don't see any other messages with "table.column". Do you want? Specify OWNED BY column or OWNED BY NONE. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name
Bruce Momjian writes: > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that >> error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any >> other error message. > What do you suggest? The current message is: > Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE. Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices. The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit, and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit more than other places. You could as well complain that there's nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices. regards, tom lane
Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 06:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that > >> error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any > >> other error message. > > > What do you suggest? The current message is: > > > Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE. > > Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better > without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices. > The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit, > and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit > more than other places. You could as well complain that there's > nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices. OK, I will do just the documentation patch for this then. -- Bruce Momjian https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
