On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 4:33 AM FabrÃzio de Royes Mello <fabriziome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 2:25 PM Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > As noted by a PostgreSQL user to me, error messages for NOT NULL > > constraints are inconsistent - they do not mention the relation name in the > > message, as all other variants of this message do. e.g. > > > > postgres=# create table nn (id integer not null); > > CREATE TABLE > > postgres=# insert into nn values (NULL); > > ERROR: null value in column "id" violates not-null constraint > > DETAIL: Failing row contains (null). > > > > postgres=# create table nn2 (id integer check (id is not null)); > > CREATE TABLE > > postgres=# insert into nn2 values (NULL); > > ERROR: new row for relation "nn2" violates check constraint "nn2_id_check" > > DETAIL: Failing row contains (null). > > > > I propose the attached patch as a fix, changing the wording (of the first > > case) to > > ERROR: null value in column "id" for relation "nn" violates not-null > > constraint > >
I think we are inconsistent for a similar message at a few other places as well. See, below two messages: column \"%s\" contains null values column \"%s\" of table \"%s\" contains null values If we decide to change this case, then why not change another place which has a similar symptom? > > It causes breakage in multiple tests, which is easy to fix once/if we agree > > to change. > > > > I totally agree with that change because I already get some negative feedback > from users about this message too. > What kind of negative feedback did you get from users? If I see in the log file, the message is displayed as : 2019-03-24 18:12:49.331 IST [6348] ERROR: null value in column "id" violates not-null constraint 2019-03-24 18:12:49.331 IST [6348] DETAIL: Failing row contains (null). 2019-03-24 18:12:49.331 IST [6348] STATEMENT: insert into nn values (NULL); So, it is not difficult to identify the relation. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
