On 9 August 2017 at 13:03, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >
There was an earlier suggestion to use "greater than or equal to". I think that would work quite well: ERROR: invalid range bounds for partition \"%s\" DETAIL: lower bound %s is greater than or equal to upper bound %s. Regards, Dean -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
