On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:28 AM Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:00 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > >> Yeah, this error message seems outright buggy. However, it's a minor > > >> matter. Also, some people think "positive" is the same thing as > > >> "non-negative", so maybe we need less ambiguous wording? > > > > > Since value 0 can't be considered as either a positive or negative > > > integer, I think we can do as following(roughly): > > > > > if (value < 0) "requires a zero or positive integer value" > > > if (value <= 0) "requires a positive integer value" > > > > I was thinking of avoiding the passive voice and writing > > > > "foo must be greater than zero" > > +1 for "foo must be greater than zero" if (foo <= 0) kind of errors. > But, we also have some values for which zero is accepted, see below > error messages. How about the error message "foo must be greater than > or equal to zero"? >
+1 for your proposed message for the cases where we have a check if (foo < 0). Tom, Michael, do you see any problem with the proposed message? We would like to make a similar change at another place [1] so wanted to be consistent. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACWGB9oHCR5ygkc8u6_QDqecObf9j2MxtOgsjZMMKsLj%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.