Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> At least if we think it's more than a very narrow legitimate use, compared
>> to the number of ppl making the mistake.

> Did we ever come to a conclusion on this or not? I've changed my patch
> per the suggestions in the thread, but I've held back on committing it
> to hear arguments... Go or no-go?

I'm inclined to vote no-go on the message.  AFAIR we've only heard the
one complaint about this, so I'm not convinced there's a lot of people
making such a mistake.  We did make the logic change to deal with the
underlying problem of a misleading error message after you'd done it,
and I think that might be enough.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to