On 12.09.25 15:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
>> I propose the attached patch to fix this. I think this restores the
>> original meaning better.
>
> I'm okay with this wording change, but I would stay with
> ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED rather than calling this
> a "syntax error". It's not a syntax error IMV, but a
> potential feature that we have deliberately left syntax
> space for, even though we don't yet have ideas about
> a workable implementation.
Ok, done that way.
