On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/17 15:09, Tom Lane wrote: > > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > >> On 9/21/17 18:13, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> Give a better error for duplicate entries in VACUUM/ANALYZE column > list. > > > >> In the error message, we should write "specified more than once" instead > >> of "specified twice", because that could otherwise look a bit silly: > >> VACUUM ANALYZE vaccluster(i,i,i); > >> ERROR: column "i" of relation "vaccluster" is specified twice > > > > OK. > > > >> (Also, the "is" doesn't seem to fit there.) > > > > Hm, reads fine to me, and I'd still rather include "is" in the > > revised wording. Anybody else agree with Peter's wording? > > Note a big deal. I'm just working off existing error messages: > About half of those, especially the "appears" ones, seem unhelpful for deciding whether to add "is" here; "is appears" just doesn't work. I think the added length due to the "of relation %", makes dropping the 'is' sound more odd than those like "column % specified" The middle ground would be writing: column "i" of relation "vaccluster" appears more than once; I'm good with using appears instead of deciding between [is] specified. I'm not seeing that we have a formal distinction between "specified" and "appears"... David J.
