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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers