Dean Rasheed wrote:
> 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.
Is it possible to detect the equality case specifically and use a
different errdetail? Something like "the lower bound %s is equal to the
upper bound" (obviously without including both in the message.)
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: