Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I suggest
cannot execute \"%s\" on \"%s\" because ...
Hmm, why not just
cannot execute %s \"%s\" because ...
?
Hmm, yeah, that seems fine too. Thinking more about it, from the POV of
the tra
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I suggest
> > cannot execute \"%s\" on \"%s\" because ...
>
> Hmm, why not just
>
> cannot execute %s \"%s\" because ...
>
> ?
Hmm, yeah, that seems fine too. Thinking more about it, from the POV of
the translator prob
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm tempted to rephrase both messages along the line of
>> cannot %s \"%s\" because ...
>>
>> where the first %s is replaced by a SQL command name, viz ALTER TABLE,
>> CLUSTER, etc. I'm not sure how nice this is for translation thoug
Tom Lane wrote:
> I would like to export this routine and have it be used by all four
> commands, instead of duplicating this logic everywhere. However,
> that brings up the question of whether the error messages are
> generic enough for all four commands; and if not, how we want them
> to read.
In the recent discussion of bug #3883 we decided that for safety's sake,
TRUNCATE, CLUSTER, and REINDEX ought to error out if there are any
active scans on the table (or index in the case of REINDEX). This is
essentially the same as the test currently applied by ALTER TABLE,
which uses this code:
