From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: protodef@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name
In-reply-to: <20200322201518.GB2031@momjian.us>
References: <158399268229.5708.13296960177949398026@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20200322001310.GA2031@momjian.us> <22707.1584903901@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20200322201518.GB2031@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Sun, 22 Mar 2020 16:15:18 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <4627.1584915604.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 18:20:04 -0400
Message-ID: <4628.1584915604@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 03:05:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't really think this is an improvement, mainly because that
>> error message is inventing a notation that we do not use in any
>> other error message.

> What do you suggest?  The current message is:

> 	Specify OWNED BY table.column or OWNED BY NONE.

Yeah, and I think that's okay as-is, or at least we can't make it better
without fairly whole-sale changes of our documentation practices.
The fact that a table name can be schema-qualified is usually implicit,
and I don't see why this place cries out for making it explicit
more than other places.  You could as well complain that there's
nothing explicit here about double-quoting practices.

			regards, tom lane