| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error message cleanup |
| Date: | 2003-09-25 06:08:57 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0309250805050.28641-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Are you going to change "relation" to "table"? In most cases that is
> the intended meaning. ISTM in some other cases it refers to anything
> that can appear in pg_class, but I'm not 100% sure.
There are a few cases where it was obvious that only a table could be
meant, but I didn't look really hard to find such places. I think there
would be some merit to resolving the fuzziness surrounding the term
"relation" before issuing messages to the user, but I'm unsure from which
end to attack it.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hornyak Laszlo | 2003-09-25 06:36:05 | Re: [ADMIN] postgres 6.2 vacuum |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-25 04:34:36 | Re: Error message cleanup |