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 s
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 12:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera 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:25
On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 17:57 +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane 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" t
Alvaro Herrera 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 in chec
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 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 fo
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane 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 the SQL keyw
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
Desc
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue ago 09 12:40:08 -0400 2012:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane 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
Robert Haas writes:
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane 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 error cursor is a
> good substitute
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane 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 obvious that we h
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
