Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460)
Date: 2010-01-28 15:31:34
Message-ID: 14287.1264692694@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> When I'm testing the new patch, I found "ALTER LARGE OBJECT" command
> returns "ALTER LARGEOBJECT" tag. Should it be "ALTER LARGE(space)OBJECT"
> instead?  As I remember, we had decided not to use LARGEOBJECT
> (without a space) in user-visible messages, right?

The command tag should match the actual command.  If the command name
is "ALTER LARGE OBJECT", the command tag should be too.  This is
independent of phraseology we might choose in error messages (though
I agree I don't like "largeobject" in those either).

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2010-01-28 15:32:33
Subject: Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Previous:From: Tim BunceDate: 2010-01-28 15:30:27
Subject: Re: plperl compiler warning

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group