"Greg Sabino Mullane" <g...@turnstep.com> writes: >> We're really not going to address this type of complaint on a >> one-error-message-at-a-time basis. See prior discussions --- a more >> realistic (and standards compliant) approach will probably involve >> adding fields to the verbose form of the error message.
> Pointers to previous discussions welcome. The most recent one I can find is the thread starting at http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-11/msg00846.php > I was simply trying to > fix a specific problem I was having, but some digging shows the > problem is already solved for most (all?) other similar cases: Um, no, it's not solved. There are a huge number of error messages that refer to database objects by name only, even though the name might be ambiguous. It's not reasonable to fix them one at a time, especially not in a fashion that breaks regression tests ;-). My own preference for what to do about this is to leave the primary message texts alone and add additional error-message fields for object name and schema. This would address the need without making messages uglier for the large fraction of users who don't really care; and it would also help us get closer to the SQL standard's expectations for error reporting. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
