Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Sample output to the client (note: in this test, MAX_REPORTED_DEPS is
> > set to 10).
> > ...
> > foo=# drop user foo;
> > ERROR: role "foo" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
> > DETAIL: owner of tablespace foo
> >
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Sample output to the client (note: in this test, MAX_REPORTED_DEPS is
> set to 10).
> ...
> foo=# drop user foo;
> ERROR: role "foo" cannot be dropped because some objects depend on it
> DETAIL: owner of tablespace foo
> owner of table a100
> owner of
Tom Lane wrote:
> Perhaps a better solution is to keep MAX_REPORTED_DEPS where it is, and
> arrange that when it's exceeded, the *entire* list of dependencies gets
> reported to the postmaster log; we can expect that that will work.
> We still send the same just-the-count message to the client. W
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ed L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [ enlarge MAX_REPORTED_DEPS to 2000 ]
>
> I was about to apply this, but stopped to reflect that it is probably
> not such a hot idea. My concern is that enormously long error message
> detail fields are likely to break client software, pa
On Tuesday 01 May 2007 9:34 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ed L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [ enlarge MAX_REPORTED_DEPS to 2000 ]
>
> I was about to apply this, but stopped to reflect that it is
> probably not such a hot idea. My concern is that enormously
> long error message detail fields are like
"Ed L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ enlarge MAX_REPORTED_DEPS to 2000 ]
I was about to apply this, but stopped to reflect that it is probably
not such a hot idea. My concern is that enormously long error message
detail fields are likely to break client software, particularly GUI
clients. A p
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
and approves it.
---
Ed
On Wednesday April 4 2007 5:37 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Perhaps this could be added to the TODO list? I won't get
> > to it anytime soon.
>
> Yes. What should the TODO text be?
See if the attached patch is acceptable. If not, perhaps the
TODO text should be:
Enable end user to identify de
