Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar jun 12 16:52:20 -0400 2012:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> I notice that there's an unfinished attempt to maintain a line_start
> >> pointer; if that were carried through, we could imagine printing the
> >> current line up to the point of an error, which might provide a
> >> reasonable balance between verbosity and insufficient context.
> >> ...
> >> or perhaps better let it run to the end of the line:
>
> > I'm not sure I find that an improvement, but I'm open to what other
> > people think.
>
> Anybody here besides the crickets?
I think providing both partial line contents (so +1 for maintaining
line_start carefully as required) and line number would be useful enough
to track down problems.
I am not sure about the idea of letting the detail run to the end of the
line; that would be problematic should the line be long (there might not
be newlines in the literal at all, which is not that unusual). I think
it should be truncated at, say, 76 chars or so.
For the case where you have a single } in a line, this isn't all that
helpful; we could consider printing the previous line as well. But if
you end up with
}
}
then it's not that helpful either. I am not sure.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
