Re: fix for BUG #3720: wrong results at using ltree

I wrote:
> Hence, attached are two revised patches that attack the problem
> this way. The first one is somewhat unrelated to the original
> point --- it's trying to clean up the error messages in ltree_in
> and lquery_in so that they are more consistent and agree with
> the terminology used in the documentation. (Notably, the term
> "level" is used nowhere in the ltree docs, except in the legacy
> function name nlevel().)

One thing I changed in that patch was to change the syntax error
reports to say "at character %d" not "in position %d", because
I thought the latter was pretty confusing --- it's not obvious
whether it's counting characters or labels or what. However,
I now notice that what the code is providing is a zero-based
character index, which is out of line with our practice
elsewhere: core parser errors are reported using 1-based indexes.
If we reword these messages then we should adopt that practice too.
Hence, new patch versions that do it like that. (0002 is unchanged.)

regards, tom lane