On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On lör, 2011-01-01 at 17:21 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with having 20 or 30 messages of variants of
foo cannot be used on bar
without placeholders.
Well, that's OK with me. It seems a
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of lun ene 03 12:21:44 -0300 2011:
Yeah, that's no good. Maybe there's a good way to clear things up
with an errdetail(), though I'm having a hard time thinking how to
phrase it.
ERROR: sequence %s does not support the requested operation
DETAIL:
On lör, 2011-01-01 at 17:21 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with having 20 or 30 messages of variants of
foo cannot be used on bar
without placeholders.
Well, that's OK with me. It seems a little grotty, but manageably so.
Questions:
1. Should we try to
Le 01/01/2011 06:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
No, quite the opposite. With the other approach, you needed:
constraints cannot be used on views
constraints cannot be
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
guilla...@lelarge.info wrote:
Le 01/01/2011 06:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
No, quite the opposite. With the other
Le 01/01/2011 16:00, Robert Haas a écrit :
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
guilla...@lelarge.info wrote:
Le 01/01/2011 06:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On lör, 2011-01-01 at 00:05 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah, and I still believe that. I'm having difficulty coming up with
a workable approach, though.
I don't see anything wrong with having 20 or 30 messages of variants of
foo cannot be used on bar
without placeholders.
--
Sent via
On lör, 2011-01-01 at 10:00 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Is it in any better if we write one string per feature, like this:
constraints cannot be used on %s
triggers cannot be used on %s
...where %s is a plural object type (views, foreign tables, etc.).
No, this won't work.
--
Sent via
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On lör, 2011-01-01 at 00:05 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Yeah, and I still believe that. I'm having difficulty coming up with
a workable approach, though.
I don't see anything wrong with having 20 or 30 messages of variants
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie dic 31 02:07:18 -0300 2010:
I think that's true in some cases but not all. The system-generated
attribute names thing actually applies in several cases, and I think
it's pretty cut-and-dried. When you get into something like which
kinds of
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
I think for now what I
had better do is try to get this SQL/MED patch finished up by
soldiering through this mess rather than trying to fix it. I think
it's going to be kind of ugly, but we haven't got another
On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
No, quite the opposite. With the other approach, you needed:
constraints cannot be used on views
constraints cannot be used on composite types
constraints cannot be used on TOAST tables
constraints cannot be used on indexes
constraints
On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
ISTM there are four things we might potentially want to state in the
error message: the feature/operation you tried to apply, the name of
the object you tried to apply it to, the type of that object, and the
set of object types that the
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
No, quite the opposite. With the other approach, you needed:
constraints cannot be used on views
constraints cannot be used on composite types
constraints cannot be
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 5:14 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 04:53:47PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 29.12.2010 06:54, Robert Haas wrote:
With the patch:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue dic 30 12:47:42 -0300 2010:
After further thought, I think it makes sense to change this around a
bit and create a family of functions that can be invoked like this:
void check_relation_for_FEATURE_support(Relation rel);
...where FEATURE is
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue dic 30 12:47:42 -0300 2010:
After further thought, I think it makes sense to change this around a
bit and create a family of functions that can be invoked like this:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
After further thought, I think it makes sense to change this around a
bit and create a family of functions that can be invoked like this:
void check_relation_for_FEATURE_support(Relation rel);
That seems like a reasonable idea, but ...
... The error
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue dic 30 13:49:20 -0300 2010:
One possibility is to break it down like this:
ERROR: foo is a sequence
DETAIL: Triggers can only be used on tables and views.
This could still be emitted by a function such as you suggest, and
indeed that would
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
One possibility is to break it down like this:
ERROR: foo is a sequence
DETAIL: Triggers can only be used on tables and views.
This could still be emitted by a function such as you suggest, and
indeed that
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
One possibility is to break it down like this:
ERROR: foo is a sequence
DETAIL: Triggers can only be used on tables and views.
This
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On further reflection, this can still turn into a laundry list in certain
cases.
DETAIL: You can only comment on columns of tables, views, and composite types.
seems less helpful than:
DETAIL: Comments on relations with system-generated column
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On further reflection, this can still turn into a laundry list in certain
cases.
DETAIL: You can only comment on columns of tables, views, and composite
types.
seems less helpful
Robert Haas robertmh...@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
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@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
On 29.12.2010 06:54, Robert Haas wrote:
With the patch:
rhaas=# cluster v;
ERROR: views do not support CLUSTER
do not support sounds like a missing feature, rather than a
nonsensical command. How about something like CLUSTER cannot be used on
views
The patch changes a bunch of
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 29.12.2010 06:54, Robert Haas wrote:
With the patch:
rhaas=# cluster v;
ERROR: views do not support CLUSTER
do not support sounds like a missing feature, rather than a nonsensical
command.
On 29.12.2010 13:17, Robert Haas wrote:
Did you read the whole thread?
Ah, sorry:
I've had to change some of the heap_open(rv) calls to
relation_open(rv) to avoid having the former throw the wrong error
message before the latter kicks in. I think there might be stylistic
objections to that,
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Hmm, I believe the idea of heap_open is to check that the relation is
backed by a heap that you can read with heap_beginscan+heap_next. At the
moment that includes normal tables, sequences and toast tables. Foreign
tables would
On Dec 29, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
Hmm, I believe the idea of heap_open is to check that the relation is
backed by a heap that you can read with heap_beginscan+heap_next. At the
moment that includes
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
The existing comments mention that callers must check that the return
value is not a view, if they care. So if there is currently a single
coherent definition for what heap_open is supposed to do, it's clearly
NOT the one Heikki proposes. My guess is
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié dic 29 16:29:45 -0300 2010:
In practice I think it would make sense if heap_open accepts all
relation types on which you can potentially do either a heapscan or
indexscan (offhand those should be the same set of relkinds, I think;
so this is the same in
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié dic 29 16:29:45 -0300 2010:
In practice I think it would make sense if heap_open accepts all
relation types on which you can potentially do either a heapscan or
indexscan (offhand those should be the
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié dic 29 16:29:45 -0300 2010:
In practice I think it would make sense if heap_open accepts all
relation types on which you can potentially
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 29.12.2010 06:54, Robert Haas wrote:
With the patch:
rhaas=# cluster v;
ERROR: views do not support CLUSTER
do not support sounds like a missing feature, rather than a nonsensical
command.
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 04:53:47PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 4:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 29.12.2010 06:54, Robert Haas wrote:
With the patch:
rhaas=# cluster v;
ERROR: views do not support CLUSTER
do not
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that alter table actions AT_AddIndex and
AT_AddConstraint don't tie neatly back to a particular piece of
syntax. The message as written isn't incomprehensible (especially if
you're reading it in English)
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
or if we go with the some-assembly required version, perhaps:
tables do not support %s
views do not support %s
indexes do not support %s
+1 for that way. Although personally I'd reverse the phrasing:
/* translator: %s is the name of a SQL
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
or if we go with the some-assembly required version, perhaps:
tables do not support %s
views do not support %s
indexes do not support %s
+1 for that way. Although personally I'd
In reviewing the work Shigeru Hanada has done on SQL/MED, it's come to
my attention that we have a lot of error messages that use the error
code ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE and have text like this:
%s is not a table
%s is not an index
or even better:
%s is not a table, view, composite type, or
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:13:35PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
In reviewing the work Shigeru Hanada has done on SQL/MED, it's come to
my attention that we have a lot of error messages that use the error
code ERRCODE_WRONG_OBJECT_TYPE and have text like this:
%s is not a table
%s is not an
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:13, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Could we get away with something as simple as requested operation is
not supported for plural-form-of-object-type?
+1. If so, will we have a function to get object names something like
GetPluralFormOfObjectType(Relation rel
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
itagaki.takah...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 12:13, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Could we get away with something as simple as requested operation is
not supported for plural-form-of-object-type?
+1. If so, will we
On Dec 26, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
tables do not support %s
views do not support %s
indexes do not support %s
The more detail we can give, the better, of course. Nothing's more frustrating
than having a command with an error like, Object does not support requested
operation.
44 matches
Mail list logo
