| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks | 
| Date: | 2012-08-15 03:44:53 | 
| Message-ID: | 1345002293.17599.14.camel@vanquo.pezone.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 12:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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 in check constraint"
> 
> > And so on (there are several more).  Note that here we use "check
> > constraint" without any capitalization.
> 
> FWIW, I think I changed "check" to "CHECK" in a couple of messages
> recently, for exactly the reason that it seemed to be used in its
> keyword meaning rather than as plain English text.  Perhaps we
> should just go around and do that consistently.
I'm not in favor of that.  "Check constraint" is a database term that
exists outside of SQL, just like "primary key", for instance.  You
wouldn't write the latter in all upper case everywhere, I think.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-08-15 03:48:37 | Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks | 
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-08-15 03:16:46 | Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks |