From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrus <kobruleht2(at)hot(dot)ee>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: How to get schema name which violates fk constraint |
Date: | 2008-10-22 17:14:43 |
Message-ID: | 20081022171443.GC4022@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane escribió:
> A comprehensive response to this type of gripe wouldn't be all that
> "easy". In the first place, there'd be a lot of code to touch.
Well, that makes it tedious, which is not the same as hard.
> In the second place, the reason most of our messages don't already
> contain schema names is that in the past we've judged it would be
> mostly clutter; and given the infrequency of complaints I see no
> reason to change that opinion.
I tend to disagree. We can run a poll in a wider audience.
> The type of fix I'd like to see would be to not change message texts at
> all, but to add separate error-message fields for the name and schema
> name of object(s) involved in an error; which would be details that
> psql, for example, would show only in VERBOSE mode. Note that error
> report fields along this line are actually required by the SQL spec
> (cf GET DIAGNOSTICS) but we've never got round to implementing 'em.
Now that's a bit more complex than the trivial solution of adding an
extra %s to the error message, but it's still not all that difficult, I
think.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-22 17:27:58 | Re: How to get schema name which violates fk constraint |
Previous Message | Andrus | 2008-10-22 17:13:04 | Re: How to get schema name which violates fk constraint |