OK, thanks, point taken. I do hope at some point we have a project to
improve our error messages; in general they are pretty good, but there
are some doozys.
David
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
David W. Van Couvering wrote:
I'm not sure I understand this logic. Shouldn't we be providing useful
error messages with enough detail as possible? Standard error messages
may be reusable, but they may not be helpful. Are there space concerns?
Space concern is one factor. The other is that approaching this on an
ad-hoc basis doesn't seem the best approach to me. Will lead to lots of
different messages written by different people that really are
describing the same situation. For example with your proposed fix would
would have had a message just for CLOB that really isn't in line with
the style of the other messages. Why not address it for BLOB as well,
what about other data types, what about the corresponding client message?
I've seen this before, the data type messages used to each print the
type in their own way, much as the text of your message proposed. Thus
we had no consistency, Clob vs. CLOB, DOUBLE vs. DOUBLE PRECISION vs
double, DECIMAL vs NUMERIC vs. DECIMAL/NUMERIC.
I'm sure we could write better error messages, but let's make a
consistent effort around that, not little fixups in unrelated patches.
If the standard message for value out of range is confusing, what could
be done to improve it for all cases?
Dan.
begin:vcard
fn:David W Van Couvering
n:Van Couvering;David W
org:Sun Microsystems, Inc.;Database Technology Group
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Senior Staff Software Engineer
tel;work:510-550-6819
tel;cell:510-684-7281
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard
