Magnus Hagander wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> At least if we think it's more than a very narrow legitimate use, compared > >>> to the number of ppl making the mistake. > > > >> Did we ever come to a conclusion on this or not? I've changed my patch > >> per the suggestions in the thread, but I've held back on committing it > >> to hear arguments... Go or no-go? > > > > I'm inclined to vote no-go on the message. AFAIR we've only heard the > > one complaint about this, so I'm not convinced there's a lot of people > > making such a mistake. We did make the logic change to deal with the > > underlying problem of a misleading error message after you'd done it, > > and I think that might be enough. > > Ok. I'm dropping it for now. If someone wants it later, the patch is in > the archives...
Indulge me while I say that it's pretty useless there. The archiver mangles it pretty badly -- I have never found a patch you could actually use in the archives (or on Bruce's queues for that matter). What I have had to do was log into the majordomo page and have it send the email to me. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org