On 12.09.25 15:49, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> writes:I propose the attached patch to fix this. I think this restores the original meaning better.I'm okay with this wording change, but I would stay with ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED rather than calling this a "syntax error". It's not a syntax error IMV, but a potential feature that we have deliberately left syntax space for, even though we don't yet have ideas about a workable implementation.
Ok, done that way.
