On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> No, quite the opposite. With the other approach, you needed:
>> constraints cannot be used on views
>> constraints cannot be used on composite types
>> constraints cannot be used on TOAST tables
>> constraints cannot be used on indexes
>> constraints cannot be used on foreign tables
>> With this, you just need:
>> constraints can only be used on tables
> At the beginning of this thread you said that the error messages should
> focus on what you tried to do, not what you could do instead.
Yeah, and I still believe that. I'm having difficulty coming up with
a workable approach, though. It would be simple enough if we could
/* translator: first %s is a feature, second %s is a relation type */
%s cannot be used on %s
...but I think this is likely to cause some translation headaches.
> Also, in this particular case, the user could very well assume that a
> TOAST table or a foreign table is a table.
There's a limited amount we can do about confused users, but it is
true that the negative phrasing is better for that case.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joel Jacobson||Date: 2011-01-01 08:33:13|
|Subject: Re: contrib/snapshot|
|Previous:||From: Jim Nasby||Date: 2011-01-01 03:24:26|
|Subject: Re: estimating # of distinct values|