Re: New CORRESPONDING clause design

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2017-03-18 18:32 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> I definitely don't see a reason for CORRESPONDING to track locations of
>> name list elements when no other name list productions do. It might be
>> worth proposing a followon patch to change all of them (perhaps by adding
>> a location field to struct "Value") and then make use of the locations in
>> error messages more widely.

> I had a idea use own node for CORRESPONDING with location - and using this
> location in related error messages.

I think using a private node type for CORRESPONDING is exactly the wrong
thing. It's a columnList and it should be like other columnLists. If
there's an argument for providing a location for "no such column" errors
for CORRESPONDING, then surely there's also an argument for providing
a location for "no such column" errors for FOREIGN KEY and the other
places where we have lists of column names.

regards, tom lane