Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> writes: > I propose the attached patch to fix this. I think this restores the > original meaning better.
I'm okay with this wording change, but I would stay with
ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED rather than calling this
a "syntax error". It's not a syntax error IMV, but a
potential feature that we have deliberately left syntax
space for, even though we don't yet have ideas about
a workable implementation.
regards, tom lane
