From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ken Tanzer <ken(dot)tanzer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PG-General Mailing List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Any hope for more specific error message for "value too long..."? |
Date: | 2018-02-17 01:10:09 |
Message-ID: | 4349.1518829809@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Ken Tanzer <ken(dot)tanzer(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Hi. If you try to assign a too-long string to a field, Postgresql will say
> so, but won't tell you which value/field is causing the problem:
> CREATE TEMP TABLE foo (a VARCHAR(2));
> INSERT INTO foo VALUES ('ABC');
> CREATE TABLE
> ERROR: value too long for type character varying(2)
> That doesn't matter much in a simple example like that, but the example
> below is currently making me wish PG was just a little bit more specific.
> Is there much chance of this changing in future releases?
It's an issue that's been on the radar screen for a long time, but it's
not very clear how to improve matters without a lot of added overhead
and/or an API break for user-defined data types, neither of which seem
like prices we'd be willing to pay. For that matter, it's not totally
clear what would constitute an improvement --- what do you wish it would
show you, exactly? In the particular case here, the fact that a varchar
length coercion is being invoked isn't even explicit in the query.
Good ideas welcome ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-02-17 01:11:03 | Re: Any hope for more specific error message for "value too long..."? |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-02-17 00:57:31 | Re: Rationale for PUBLIC having CREATE and USAGE privileges on the schema "public" by default |