Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> I think this thread has worked itself around to where it's entirely
> pointless.
I understand your frustration, but it's not clear to me that there *is*
any simple solution to this problem. Fundamentally, adding new relkinds
to the system is always going to require running around and looking at a
lot of code to see what's affected; and that goes for the error messages
too. I put no stock at all in the idea that writing a "guiding
principle" in the error messages will avoid anything, because as often
as not, adding a fundamentally new relkind is going to involve some
tweaking of what those principles are.
> ... This message also does nothing to help the user understand WHY we don't
> allow renaming the attributes of his sequence or TOAST table, whereas
> the proposed revision does.
I remain unconvinced that the average user cares, or will be able to
extrapolate the message to understand what's supported or not, even
if he does care about the reason for the restriction.
regards, tom lane