On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> A small suggestion is that it'd be better to write it like "Specified
> upper bound \"%s\" precedes lower bound \"%s\"." I think "succeeds" has
> more alternate meanings than "precedes", so the wording you have seems
> more confusing than it needs to be. (Of course, the situation could be
> the opposite in other languages, but translators have the ability to
> reverse the ordering if they need to.)
I think that doesn't quite work, because the failure is caused by LB
<= UB, not LB < UB. We could fix that by writing "precedes or equals"
but that seems lame. Maybe:
Lower bound %s does not precede upper bound %s.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
