On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:46:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> The direction that we ought to be going in is to add separate fields to
> error reports that contain just the names of the relevant objects (without
> any other decoration). This is needed anyway to allow client-side
> programs to extract
Joachim Wieland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Making assumptions on the length of an error message seems to be moot
> anyway, since you don't know the length of the names of user defined objects
> in advance, nor do you know the length of the translated message strings in
> different languages.
It
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 05:10:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Joachim Wieland wrote:
> >> I wonder if there is a policy on when schema-qualified names should
> >> be used in ereport/elog messages.
> > If it's not too hard to do, I would add the schema
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joachim Wieland wrote:
>> I wonder if there is a policy on when schema-qualified names should
>> be used in ereport/elog messages.
> If it's not too hard to do, I would add the schema name in most places.
Actually, it's semi-consciously omitted in mo
Joachim Wieland wrote:
> I wonder if there is a policy on when schema-qualified names should
> be used in ereport/elog messages.
If it's not too hard to do, I would add the schema name in most places.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end o
I wonder if there is a policy on when schema-qualified names should be used
in ereport/elog messages.
At the moment this doesn't seem to be consistent, even within the same
command:
template1=# VACUUM verbose t;
INFO: vacuuming "public.t"
[...]
template1=# VACUUM verbose tv;
WARNING: skipping
