| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error message cleanup |
| Date: | 2003-09-25 04:34:36 |
| Message-ID: | 1366.1064464476@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Are you going to change "relation" to "table"? In most cases that is
> the intended meaning. ISTM in some other cases it refers to anything
> that can appear in pg_class, but I'm not 100% sure.
Quite a lot of the code considers "relation" to mean "anything that has
a pg_class entry", which is a definition that's gotten fuzzier and
fuzzier as we've thrown more stuff into pg_class. (Standalone composite
types, for example, hardly qualify as a relation by anyone's
understanding of the term. But they have pg_class entries now.)
I don't mind rewording error messages to say "table" when in fact they
could only be referring to plain tables. But let's not just move the
fuzziness over from "relation" to "table".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-09-25 06:08:57 | Re: Error message cleanup |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-09-25 03:04:03 | Re: PostgreSQL not ACID compliant? |