Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 06:20:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
> >> error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
> >> other error message.
>
> > What do you suggest? The current message is:
>
> > Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.
>
> Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better
> without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices.
> The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit,
> and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit
> more than other places. You could as well complain that there's
> nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices.

OK, I will do just the documentation patch for this then.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +