Prev: problem about inet
Next: one-off error in to_char formatting
From: Stephen Frost on 5 Mar 2010 08:18
* Tom Lane (tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> One thought is that the column cases should be phrased more like
> no privileges could be revoked for column "foo" of table "bar"
> Check the messages associated with DROP cascading for the canonical
> phrasing here, but I think that's what it is.

Looks like 'for column "foo" of relation "bar"' is more typical, so
that's what I did in the attached patch. I also cleaned up a few other
things I noticed in looking through the various messages/comments.

Thanks!

Stephen
From: Tom Lane on 6 Mar 2010 18:13
Stephen Frost <sfrost(a)snowman.net> writes:
> * Tom Lane (tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
>> One thought is that the column cases should be phrased more like
>> no privileges could be revoked for column "foo" of table "bar"

> Looks like 'for column "foo" of relation "bar"' is more typical, so
> that's what I did in the attached patch. I also cleaned up a few other
> things I noticed in looking through the various messages/comments.

Applied, except I omitted the one comment change because it didn't seem
to me to clarify anything. Sequences are a subclass of relations, so
"table or sequence" makes sense to me while "relation or sequence"
doesn't.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: problem about inet
Next: one-off error in to_char formatting