> >> In the second place, the reason most of our messages don't already
> >> contain schema names is that in the past we've judged it would be
> >> mostly clutter; and given the infrequency of complaints I see no
> >> reason to change that opinion.
>
> > I tend to disagree. We can run a poll in a
George Pavlov wrote:
> I
> suspect lack of complaints is largely due to the (small) number of
> people using namespaces -- the denominator should be users of the
> feature, not all users...
I certainly found it extremely frustrating that errors didn't reference
the involved schema when I was wor
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Andrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, FWIW, I also would like to be able to see which schema caused the
>> violation, as I'm in a similar boat of having the same table name in
>> multiple schemas.
>
> Maybe to report schema name only if it is not public or i
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Tom Lane escribió:
>>> In the second place, the reason most of our messages don't already
>>> contain schema names is that in the past we've judged it would be
>>> mostly clutter; a
Well, FWIW, I also would like to be able to see which schema caused the
violation, as I'm in a similar boat of having the same table name in
multiple schemas.
Maybe to report schema name only if it is not public or if same table
exists in different schemas or report it in detail message or h
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> In the second place, the reason most of our messages don't already
>> contain schema names is that in the past we've judged it would be
>> mostly clutter; and given the infrequency of complaints I see no
>> reason to change that opi
Tom Lane escribió:
> A comprehensive response to this type of gripe wouldn't be all that
> "easy". In the first place, there'd be a lot of code to touch.
Well, that makes it tedious, which is not the same as hard.
> In the second place, the reason most of our messages don't already
> contain sc
On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
In the
second place, the reason most of our messages don't already contain
schema names is that in the past we've judged it would be mostly
clutter; and given the infrequency of complaints I see no reason to
change that opinion.
Well, FWIW, I also
The type of fix I'd like to see would be to not change message texts at
all, but to add separate error-message fields for the name and schema
name of object(s) involved in an error; which would be details that
psql, for example, would show only in VERBOSE mode. Note that error
report fields along
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scott Marlowe escribió:
>> Actually this sounds like a TODO to me. I imagine the db knows the
>> schema and it's just not reporting it in the error message. Bruce?
>> Tom?
> Added -- it should be easy to do, so marked as such.
A comprehensive respons
Scott Marlowe escribió:
> Actually this sounds like a TODO to me. I imagine the db knows the
> schema and it's just not reporting it in the error message. Bruce?
> Tom?
Added -- it should be easy to do, so marked as such.
--
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPromp
Actually this sounds like a TODO to me. I imagine the db knows the
schema and it's just not reporting it in the error message. Bruce?
Tom?
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Andrus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FK violation erroro is displayed as
>
> 7/23503:ERROR: insert or update on table "summak
FK violation erroro is displayed as
7/23503:ERROR: insert or update on table "summak" violates foreign key
constraint "summak_kontonr_fkey1"
Key (kontonr)=(2421 ) is not present in table "konto".
I have large numbers of schemas all containing tables with same name.
How to determine schem
13 matches
Mail list logo
