| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Better error message for select_common_type() |
| Date: | 2007-04-23 23:33:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20070423233311.GH12624@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> For the VALUES case, the suggestion of "row" and "column" terminology
> seems the right thing, but for UNION it would be better to use "branch"
> perhaps ("row" certainly seems misleading). How can we make that work
> without indulging in untranslatable keyword-insertion?
>
> Another possibility is "alternative" and "column", which seems like it
> applies more or less equally poorly to both cases.
Maybe it would be good to have distinctive terminology if at all
possible, as it will be clearer for both cases.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gustavo Tonini | 2007-04-23 23:44:44 | Re: Fragmentation project |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-23 23:02:30 | Re: Better error message for select_common_type() |