Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > I would suggest that these changes be undone, except that the old > > "SELECT FOR ..." be replaced by a dynamic string that reverse-parses the > > LockingClause to provide the actual clause that was used. > > Here's a patch for this.
Pushed to 9.3 and master. Sample output: alvherre=# select * from foo, bar for update of foof for share of bar; ERROR: relation "foof" in FOR UPDATE clause not found in FROM clause alvherre=# select * from foo, bar for update of foo for share of barf; ERROR: relation "barf" in FOR SHARE clause not found in FROM clause Amusingly, the only test in which these error messages appeared, in contrib/file_fdw, was removed after the two commits that changed the wording. So there's not a single test which needed to be tweaked for this change. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
