On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> I said:
> > I would've expected it to count nested parentheses, at least.
>
> Okay, it does that now, and I found that I could tighten the error
> checking to give a sooner/more useful error. Now, if you get caught
> by the integer-FOR-vs-FOR-over-rows problem, you'll probably get
>
> ERROR: missing .. at end of SQL expression
>
> which at least gives you some clue that the problem has something to
> do with the "FOR x IN foo .. bar" syntax.
Definately better, and it probably gives a more meaningful line number
too.
