On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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.
This might help people who use tools to parse the output, but I'm not sure that's who is having this problem. Presumably a sufficiently well-written tool can also keep track of which schema it was targeting in the first place. I have some reservations about cluttering up all of our error messages with schema names, but the status quo is pretty bad for people who have a whole bunch of nearly-identical schemas and are trying to divine to which one of them a particular error message pertains. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
