Excerpts from Greg Stark's message of vie ago 10 12:57:25 -0400 2012:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fair enough. I was not sold on doing that either. I would still like
to know if it's okay to use one string with %s for the cases where
there's not a
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Speaking of english words, I was wondering at check the other day.
For example, we have
#: catalog/heap.c:2171
#, c-format
msgid check constraint \%s\ already exists
#: catalog/heap.c:2534
#, c-format
msgid only table \%s\ can be referenced
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 17:57 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fair enough. I was not sold on doing that either. I would still like
to know if it's okay to use one string with %s for the cases where
there's not a good reason for the
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 12:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Speaking of english words, I was wondering at check the other day.
For example, we have
#: catalog/heap.c:2171
#, c-format
msgid check constraint \%s\ already exists
#:
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 11:30 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
And so on (there are several more). Note that here we use check
constraint without any capitalization. However this doesn't
translate
too well as is; I mean, if I were to translate check into its
equivalent spanish word, I'm sure to
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Fair enough. I was not sold on doing that either. I would still like
to know if it's okay to use one string with %s for the cases where
there's not a good reason for the context to be more than just a
SQL keyword.
Given that
I wrote:
I find it fairly annoying though that parseCheckAggregates (and likewise
parseCheckWindowFuncs) have to dig through previously parsed query trees
to look for misplaced aggregates; so adding even more of that is grating
on me. It would be a lot cleaner if transformAggregateCall and
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
At the moment, the patch faithfully preserves (well, 99% preserves)
the current spellings of the error messages, so that no regression
test entries change. Once all those messages were brought together,
it became painfully
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If we do go with the %s-for-a-SQL-keyword approach, it would then become
tempting to force-fit all of the cases into that style.
I don't really like this, though. I don't think an
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue ago 09 12:40:08 -0400 2012:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If we do go with the %s-for-a-SQL-keyword approach, it would then become
tempting to force-fit all of the cases
Here's an updated version taking into account the discussion so far.
It's still a net addition of code (about +200 lines according to
diffstat), but I think the consolidation of logic is probably worth
that.
Any further comments?
regards, tom lane
binHLYugMFK3Z.bin
11 matches
Mail list logo
