Re: dubious error message from partition.c

On 9 August 2017 at 13:03, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> A small suggestion is that it'd be better to write it like "Specified
>> upper bound \"%s\" precedes lower bound \"%s\"." I think "succeeds" has
>> more alternate meanings than "precedes", so the wording you have seems
>> more confusing than it needs to be. (Of course, the situation could be
>> the opposite in other languages, but translators have the ability to
>> reverse the ordering if they need to.)
>
> I think that doesn't quite work, because the failure is caused by LB
> <= UB, not LB < UB. We could fix that by writing "precedes or equals"
> but that seems lame. Maybe:
>
> Lower bound %s does not precede upper bound %s.
>

There was an earlier suggestion to use "greater than or equal to". I
think that would work quite well:

ERROR: invalid range bounds for partition \"%s\"
DETAIL: lower bound %s is greater than or equal to upper bound %s.

Regards,
Dean