On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > scott.marlowe writes: > >> but I get basically the same thing if I dump it to a .sql file and do: > >> psql dbname <dbname.sql > > > Use psql -f dbname.sql instead. > > This doesn't seem like a good argument not to add more information to > the CONTEXT line for COPY errors. Sure, in theory the existing info > should be sufficient, but what if the information is not coming in > through psql? (For instance, maybe the COPY data is being generated > on-the-fly by some other program.) Or what if the dump file is so large > you can't easily edit it to determine which line number is in question? > There are plenty of scenarios where it's not all that convenient to > triangulate on a problem from outside information. Minimalism isn't > really a virtue in error reports anyway. > > I'm thinking maybe: > > CONTEXT: COPY tablename, line 41: "data ..." > > would serve the purpose nicely.
Yeah, just having the table name and line number would be plenty for me. It's the lack of a table name that makes it so frustrating. I had to basically dump / restore the tables one at a time to figure out which one was causing the error. On a database with hundreds of tables, that could be painful. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
