From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: improve CREATE EXTENSION error message |
Date: | 2021-11-29 21:39:14 |
Message-ID: | BE84F5E3-2227-4BB3-A02A-1E5490C892FD@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/29/21, 1:32 PM, "Daniel Gustafsson" <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> On 29 Nov 2021, at 22:02, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm not quite satisfied with the "on the system" wording, but I'm
>> not sure of what would be better. I agree that we can't just say
>> "is not installed", because people will confuse that with whether
>> it is installed within the database.
>
> That's a good point, the hint is targeting users who might not even know that
> an extension needs to be physically and separately installed on the machine
> before it can be installed in their database; so maybe using "installed" here
> isn't entirely helpful at all. That being said I'm at a loss for a more
> suitable word, "available" perhaps?
I was just thinking the same thing. I used "available" in v2, which
is attached.
Nathan
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v2-0001-Improve-CREATE-EXTENSION-error-message.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-11-29 21:47:09 | Re: improve CREATE EXTENSION error message |
Previous Message | Chapman Flack | 2021-11-29 21:37:30 | Re: improve CREATE EXTENSION error message |