Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Ok. I'm dropping it for now. If someone wants it later, the patch is in the archives... //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
