Re: optionally schema-qualified for table_name

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