Re: Review of Writeable CTE Patch

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Marko Tiikkaja
<marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2010-02-03 11:04 UTC+2, Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
>> Hi, I'm reviewing the writable CTE patch. The code logic seems to be
>> pretty good, but I have a couple of comments about error cases:
>>
>> * Did we have a consensus about user-visible "DML WITH" messages?
>>   The term is used in error messages in many places, for example:
>>    "DML WITH without RETURNING is only allowed inside an unreferenced CTE"
>>   Since we don't use "DML WITH" nor "CTE" in documentation,
>>   I'd like to avoid such technical acronyms in logs if we had better names,
>>   or we should have a section to explain them in docs.
>
> We have yet to reach a consensus on the name for this feature.  I don't
> think we have any really good candidates, but I like "DML WITH" best so far.

Why can't we complain about the actual SQL statement the user issued?
Like, say:

INSERT requires RETURNING when used within a referenced CTE

...Robert