On 2024-07-25 22:29 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Wienhold <ewie@ewie.name> writes:
> > Thanks, I didn't know that guideline. Both fixed in v6.
>
> This still isn't following our usual message style IMO. Here's a
> proposed v7 that outputs
>
> -ERROR: type stuff is not a composite type
> +ERROR: type stuff is the row type of another table
> +DETAIL: A typed table must use a stand-alone composite type created with CREATE TYPE.
>
> I did a bit of copy-editing on the docs changes too. One notable
> point is that I dropped the parenthetical bit about "(name optionally
> schema-qualified)". That struck me as quite unnecessary, and
> it definitely doesn't read well to have two parenthetical comments
> in a single four-line sentence.
Works for me. Thanks!
--
Erik