* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Thoughts? In particular, anyone want to bikeshed on the message wording?
Looks like a good idea to me and the wording looks fine to me.
> Does this rise to the level of a usability bug that ought to be
> back-patched? As I said, we've seen this type of thinko multiple
> times before.
For this, I'd say to not back-patch it; we seem to have had enough fun
with changing error messaging in back branches already lately (eg:
the recent autovacuum changes..).
Thanks,
Stephen