Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> So you'd prefer a message that is sometimes flat-out wrong over a
> message that is correct but less informative in the common case? I
> guess that could be right call, but it's not what I'd pick.
Well, as I said, I think the only way to really improve this message
is to use a different wording for the REJECT case. I'm unconvinced
that the problem justifies that, but if you're sufficiently hot about
it, that is the direction to go in; not making the the message less
useful for the 99% case.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
