Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> 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...
//Magnus
