On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:41 AM Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > rhaas=# drop table foo; > > ERROR: table "foo" does not exist > > HINT: Try dropping a table with a different name that does exist, or > > first create this table before trying to drop it. > > Again a wrong example and wrong comparison. I think I was clear about > the problem when I wrote I don't think this is a question of "right" vs. "wrong". You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe that I am entitled to mine, too. -- > When there was only a single way, i.e table > inheritance, to "inherit" things users could probably guess that. But > now there are multiple ways to inherit things, we have to help user a > bit more. The user might figure out that ti's a partition of a table, > so the constraint is inherited from the partitioned table. But it will > help if we give a hint about from where the constraint was inherited > like the error message itself reads like "can not drop constraint > "p_a_check" on relation "p1" inherited from "partitioned table's name" > OR a hint "you may drop constraint "p_a_check" on the partitioned > table "partitioned table's name". > -- > > For some reason you have chosen to remove this from the email and > commented on previous part of it. Well, as far as I know, it's up to me which parts of your emails I want to quote in my reply. I did read this part. It did not change my opinion. My fundamental objection to your proposal is that I think it is too wordy. I think users will generally know whether they are using partitioning or inheritance, and if they don't it's not hard to figure out. I don't think quoting only part of what you wrote made the quote misleading, but it did allow me to express my opinion. I understand that you don't agree, which is fine, but I stand by my position. ...Robert -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
