| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Largeobject Access Controls (r2460) |
| Date: | 2010-01-28 15:31:34 |
| Message-ID: | 14287.1264692694@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Takahiro Itagaki <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> When I'm testing the new patch, I found "ALTER LARGE OBJECT" command
> returns "ALTER LARGEOBJECT" tag. Should it be "ALTER LARGE(space)OBJECT"
> instead? As I remember, we had decided not to use LARGEOBJECT
> (without a space) in user-visible messages, right?
The command tag should match the actual command. If the command name
is "ALTER LARGE OBJECT", the command tag should be too. This is
independent of phraseology we might choose in error messages (though
I agree I don't like "largeobject" in those either).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-01-28 15:32:33 | Re: Review: listagg aggregate |
| Previous Message | Tim Bunce | 2010-01-28 15:30:27 | Re: plperl compiler warning |