>On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 5:36 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Joseph Koshakow <kosh...@gmail.com> writes: > > I've attached a patch with these changes that is meant to be applied > > over the previous three patches. Let me know what you think. > > Does not really seem like an improvement to me --- I think it's > adding more complexity than it removes. The changes in CONTEXT > messages are definitely not an improvement; you might as well > not have the context messages at all as give misleading ones. > (Those context messages are added by the previous patches, no? > They do not really seem per project style, and I'm not sure > that they are helpful.)
Yes they were added in the previous patch, v17-0003-Add-infinite-interval-values.patch. I also had the following note about them. > I've added an errcontext to all the errors of the form "X out of > range". My one concern is that some of the messages can be slightly > confusing. For example date arithmetic is converted to timestamp > arithmetic, so the errcontext talks about timestamps even though the > actual operation used dates. For example, > > SELECT date 'infinity' + interval '-infinity'; > ERROR: interval out of range > CONTEXT: while adding an interval and timestamp I would be OK with removing all of the context messages or maybe only keeping a select few, like the ones in interval_um. How do you feel about redefining interval_mi in terms of interval_um and interval_pl? That one felt like an improvement to me even outside of the context of this change. Thanks, Joe Koshakow