| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, MBeena Emerson <mbeena(dot)emerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error message inconsistency |
| Date: | 2020-01-27 15:54:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZq7fW795-HUSp6Gnqxuic4+E39ZH0jjF_QFUNbgxq0OA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 12:22 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> One thing to note is that there are places in code where we use
> 'table' instead of 'relation' for the same thing in the error messages
> as seen in the below places (the first one uses 'relation', the second
> one uses 'table') and the patch is using 'relation' which I think is
> fine.
We often use "relation" as a sort of a weasel-word when we don't know
the relkind; i.e. when we're complaining about something that might be
a view or index or foreign table or whatever. If we say "table," we
need to know that it is, precisely, a table.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-01-27 15:56:02 | Re: pg_croak, or something like it? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-27 15:50:11 | Re: pg_croak, or something like it? |