On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > A small suggestion is that it'd be better to write it like "Specified > upper bound \"%s\" precedes lower bound \"%s\"." I think "succeeds" has > more alternate meanings than "precedes", so the wording you have seems > more confusing than it needs to be. (Of course, the situation could be > the opposite in other languages, but translators have the ability to > reverse the ordering if they need to.)
I think that doesn't quite work, because the failure is caused by LB <= UB, not LB < UB. We could fix that by writing "precedes or equals" but that seems lame. Maybe: Lower bound %s does not precede upper bound %s. -- 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
