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...


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to