On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:28 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 7:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >
> > > Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > >> Yeah, this error message seems outright buggy. However, it's a minor
> > > >> matter. Also, some people think "positive" is the same thing as
> > > >> "non-negative", so maybe we need less ambiguous wording?
> > >
> > > > Since value 0 can't be considered as either a positive or negative
> > > > integer, I think we can do as following(roughly):
> > >
> > > > if (value < 0) "requires a zero or positive integer value"
> > > > if (value <= 0) "requires a positive integer value"
> > >
> > > I was thinking of avoiding the passive voice and writing
> > >
> > > "foo must be greater than zero"
> >
> > +1 for "foo must be greater than zero" if (foo <= 0) kind of errors.
> > But, we also have some values for which zero is accepted, see below
> > error messages. How about the error message "foo must be greater than
> > or equal to zero"?
> >
>
> +1 for your proposed message for the cases where we have a check if
> (foo < 0). Tom, Michael, do you see any problem with the proposed
> message? We would like to make a similar change at another place [1]
> so wanted to be consistent.
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACWGB9oHCR5ygkc8u6_QDqecObf9j2MxtOgsjZMMKsLj%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
Thanks all for your inputs. PSA v2 patch that uses the new convention.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
