On 29 January 2012 23:47, Josh Berkus wrote:
> This is *so* not a discussion to have on the pgsql-bugs list. Please
> take it to -hackers.
I suppose you're right, since the first discussion occurred there and
didn't really go anywhere.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Postg
>>> What I think we want to distinguish between is things that are
>>> PEBKAC/GIGO, and everything else. In other words, if a particular
>>> error message can be caused by typing something stupid, unexpected,
>>> erroneous, or whatever into psql, it's just an error. But if no
>>> input, however
On 29 January 2012 21:19, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Is it really that much of a problem to create a new severity level for
> this stuff?
I should probably have quoted this refinement, which was part of the
discussion that I originally quoted Robert from:
On 24 November 2011 16:55, Alvaro Herrera
On 29 January 2012 20:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems like a lot of make-work. The fact that it's got an XX000 SQLSTATE
> is already sufficient confirmation that the problem is an internal one,
> if the DBA isn't sure about that already.
I'm not worried about the DBA not being able to figure that ou
Josh Berkus writes:
> On 1/28/12 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus writes:
>>> SUMMARY: if you attempt to UPDATE or DELETE FROM a parent table in an
>>> inheritance relationship using a wCTE, you get the following error message:
>>> ERROR: could not find plan for CTE
>> Fixed, thanks for
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> On 29 January 2012 20:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Huh? I don't follow you at all Peter.
> I mean that we should change code like this:
> elog(ERROR, "could not find plan for CTE \"%s\"", rte->ctename)
> to this:
> elog(INTERNAL_ERROR, "could not find plan for CTE \"%s\""
On 29 January 2012 20:39, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> This is the kind of thing that could go unnoticed for a long time,
>> simply because it is not highlighted any more prominently than a
>> routine error message like an integrity constraint violation. I
>> continue to maintain that we should have a
> This is the kind of thing that could go unnoticed for a long time,
> simply because it is not highlighted any more prominently than a
> routine error message like an integrity constraint violation. I
> continue to maintain that we should have a new severity level for this
> sort of thing.
Huh?
On 29 January 2012 20:06, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 1/28/12 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus writes:
>>> SUMMARY: if you attempt to UPDATE or DELETE FROM a parent table in an
>>> inheritance relationship using a wCTE, you get the following error message:
>>> ERROR: could not find plan
On 1/28/12 5:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> SUMMARY: if you attempt to UPDATE or DELETE FROM a parent table in an
>> inheritance relationship using a wCTE, you get the following error message:
>> ERROR: could not find plan for CTE
>
> Fixed, thanks for the report.
Should w
Josh Berkus writes:
> SUMMARY: if you attempt to UPDATE or DELETE FROM a parent table in an
> inheritance relationship using a wCTE, you get the following error message:
> ERROR: could not find plan for CTE
Fixed, thanks for the report.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent
SEVERITY: normal
TYPE: SQL feature
VERSION TESTED: 9.1.2
PLATFORM: Ubuntu Linux, installed from apt-get
REPRODUCEABLE: 100%
SUMMARY: if you attempt to UPDATE or DELETE FROM a parent table in an
inheritance relationship using a wCTE, you get the following error message:
ERROR: could n
12 matches
Mail list logo
