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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2010-01-28 15:32:33 Re: Review: listagg aggregate
Previous Message Tim Bunce 2010-01-28 15:30:27 Re: plperl compiler warning