| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | protodef(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name |
| Date: | 2020-03-22 22:20:04 |
| Message-ID: | 4628.1584915604@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-03-23 01:27:57 | Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-03-22 20:15:18 | Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name |