Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

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 <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> 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.
>
> The same criticism applies to the documentation patch, I think. We don't
> usually make the schema part explicit.

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 '<replaceable>schema</replaceable>' *.sgml
create_view.sgml
reindexdb.sgml

The reindexdb use is because of -S (reindex schema), which makes sense.
The create view case is used in an example of CREATE RECURSIVE VIEW and
should probably be removed.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> 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 +