> rhaas=# drop table foo; > ERROR: table "foo" does not exist > HINT: Try dropping a table with a different name that does exist, or > first create this table before trying to drop it.
Again a wrong example and wrong comparison. I think I was clear about the problem when I wrote
I don't think this is a question of "right" vs. "wrong". You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I believe that I am entitled to mine, too.
-- When there was only a single way, i.e table inheritance, to "inherit" things users could probably guess that. But now there are multiple ways to inherit things, we have to help user a bit more. The user might figure out that ti's a partition of a table, so the constraint is inherited from the partitioned table. But it will help if we give a hint about from where the constraint was inherited like the error message itself reads like "can not drop constraint "p_a_check" on relation "p1" inherited from "partitioned table's name" OR a hint "you may drop constraint "p_a_check" on the partitioned table "partitioned table's name". --
For some reason you have chosen to remove this from the email and commented on previous part of it.
Well, as far as I know, it's up to me which parts of your emails I want to quote in my reply. I did read this part. It did not change my opinion. My fundamental objection to your proposal is that I think it is too wordy. I think users will generally know whether they are using partitioning or inheritance, and if they don't it's not hard to figure out. I don't think quoting only part of what you wrote made the quote misleading, but it did allow me to express my opinion. I understand that you don't agree, which is fine, but I stand by my position.