On 2019/03/11 16:21, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 03:44:39PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> We could make the error message more meaningful depending on the context,
>> but maybe it'd better be pursue it as a separate project.
>
> Yeah, I noticed that stuff when working on it this afternoon. The
> error message does not completely feel right even in your produced
> tests. Out of curiosity I have been working on this thing myself,
> and it is possible to have a context-related message. Please see
> attached, that's in my opinion less confusing, and of course
> debatable. Still this approach does not feel completely right either
> as that means hijacking the code path which generates a generic
> message for missing RTEs. :(
@@ -3259,6 +3259,9 @@ errorMissingRTE(ParseState *pstate, RangeVar
+ *
+ * Also, in the context of parsing a partition bound, produce a more
+ * helpful error message.
*/
if (rte && rte->alias &&
strcmp(rte->eref->aliasname, relation->relname) != 0 &&
- if (rte)
+ if (pstate->p_expr_kind == EXPR_KIND_PARTITION_BOUND)
+ ereport(ERROR,
+ (errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_TABLE),
+ errmsg("invalid reference in partition bound
expression for table
\"%s\"",
+ relation->relname)));
+ else if (rte)
Hmm, it seems odd to me that it's OK for default expressions to emit the
"missing RTE" error, whereas partition bound expressions would emit this
special error message?
create table foo (a int default (bar.a));
ERROR: missing FROM-clause entry for table "bar"
Thanks,
Amit
