From: | Jan Kundrát <jkt(at)flaska(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message |
Date: | 2011-11-21 13:59:59 |
Message-ID: | 4ECA595F.6060707@flaska.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/16/11 23:13, Royce Ausburn wrote:
> The patch fails the regression tests because it is outputting new DETAIL
> line which four of tests aren't expecting. The tests will need to be
> updated.
Hi Royce, thanks for your time which you've put into this review.
What is the suggested way to go form here? Shall I update the unit tests?
> One comment I have on the output is that strings are not in quotes.
> It's a little jarring, but might not be that big a deal. A contrived
> case that is pretty confusing:
>
> test=# insert into test select 1, 2, '3, 4', 4;
> ERROR: new row for relation "test" violates check constraint "test_b_check"
> DETAIL: Failing row: (1, 2, 3, 4, 4).
>
> A select inserting 4 columns seemingly results in a 5 column row ;)
Yes, I agree that the unescaped format of strings leads to ambiguous
results here. The code was copy-pasted from the checks which handle the
UNIQUE constraints, so if there's an obvious improvement, it should
probably be applied in there as well.
> Another super minor thing, postgres doesn't seem to put periods at the
> end of log messages, yet this new detail line does.
Again, I'm not familiar with the correct procedure. Shall I send a
revised patch for this one?
With kind regards,
Jan
--
Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2011-11-21 14:05:12 | Re: ToDo: pg_backup - using a conditional DROP |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-11-21 13:18:19 | Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation |