On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> No, quite the opposite. With the other approach, you needed: >> >> constraints cannot be used on views >> constraints cannot be used on composite types >> constraints cannot be used on TOAST tables >> constraints cannot be used on indexes >> constraints cannot be used on foreign tables >> >> With this, you just need: >> >> constraints can only be used on tables > > At the beginning of this thread you said that the error messages should > focus on what you tried to do, not what you could do instead.
Yeah, and I still believe that. I'm having difficulty coming up with a workable approach, though. It would be simple enough if we could write: /* translator: first %s is a feature, second %s is a relation type */ %s cannot be used on %s ...but I think this is likely to cause some translation headaches. > Also, in this particular case, the user could very well assume that a > TOAST table or a foreign table is a table. There's a limited amount we can do about confused users, but it is true that the negative phrasing is better for that case. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
