I wrote:
> So I think this area desperately needs significant editorial
> attention, as well as some fundamental rethinking of just what
> information we should show. Perhaps using errcontext would help,
> but I'm not sure. I think a large part of the problem stems from
> trying to cram multiple
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera writes:
> So, what we're doing here is to append further row-identifying details
> to an errdetail string that already contains some explanation of the
> problem. That is, we have something like
> DETAIL: The row to be updated was deleted.
> and then we add whate
On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 6:38 PM Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> So, what we're doing here is to append further row-identifying details
> to an errdetail string that already contains some explanation of the
> problem. That is, we have something like
>
> DETAIL: The row to be updated was deleted.
>
> an
Hello,
So, what we're doing here is to append further row-identifying details
to an errdetail string that already contains some explanation of the
problem. That is, we have something like
DETAIL: The row to be updated was deleted.
and then we add whatever this function produces, after a newli
On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 3:27 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Smith writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 1:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... and, probably, less ability of the compiler to verify that the
> >> variadic arguments match the format string. I think you've taken
> >> this a bit too far.
>
>
Peter Smith writes:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 1:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... and, probably, less ability of the compiler to verify that the
>> variadic arguments match the format string. I think you've taken
>> this a bit too far.
> * Or is it the use of the ternary operator to select the forma
On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 1:49 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Smith writes:
> > I couldn't think of a reason why the "; " string needed to be
> > separated from the rest of the message like that. And when you combine
> > the strings, the logic easily collapses into a single statement with
> > less co
Peter Smith writes:
> I couldn't think of a reason why the "; " string needed to be
> separated from the rest of the message like that. And when you combine
> the strings, the logic easily collapses into a single statement with
> less code and greater readability.
... and, probably, less ability
While reviewing another conflict-related thread, I noticed that the
existing conflict messages are currently getting built using
unexpected logic.
e.g
--
if (tuple_value.len > 0)
{
appendStringInfoString(&tuple_value, "; ");
appendStringInfo(&tuple_value, _("existing local row %s"),
