Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:46:54PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-03-24 21:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > That is a good point. I used CREATE VIEW as an example because that is > > what the user reported, but it seems only create_view and reindexed use > > a schema name qualification: > >

Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-25 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2020-03-24 21:58, Bruce Momjian wrote: That is a good point. I used CREATE VIEW as an example because that is what the user reported, but it seems only create_view and reindexed use a schema name qualification: $ grep -l 'schema' *.sgml create_view.sgml reindexdb.sgml

Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 09:35:25PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-03-23 02:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > 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 t

Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-24 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 2020-03-23 02:27, Bruce Momjian wrote: 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

Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
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 erro

Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-22 Thread Tom Lane
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: >

Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-22 Thread Bruce Momjian
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 messag

Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-22 Thread Tom Lane
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 messag

Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-21 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:58:02AM +, PG Doc comments form wrote: > The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: > > Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-altersequence.html > Description: > > Although I can see that table_name in OWNED BY clause can be optionall

optionally schema-qualified for table_name

2020-03-12 Thread PG Doc comments form
The following documentation comment has been logged on the website: Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/sql-altersequence.html Description: Although I can see that table_name in OWNED BY clause can be optionally schema-qualified by á…źcarefully reading "The specified table must have the same o