On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 10:07:49PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> Agreed. The column names are self-explanatory if you’ve seen errors
> before. The values are immaterial. Plus we don’t generally use
> psql-specific features in our examples.
Okay, I've just cleaned up that a bit with f6ab942f
On Sunday, April 28, 2024, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:45:30PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> > My preference would be to limit this section to a single example. The
> > numeric one, as it provides values for more output columns. I would
> change
> > the output format
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:45:30PM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote:
> My preference would be to limit this section to a single example. The
> numeric one, as it provides values for more output columns. I would change
> the output format to expanded from default, in order to show all columns
> and
On Sunday, April 28, 2024, jian he wrote:
>
>
> after checking the definition of [1], [2],
> maybe here we should use
>
Possibly, though I’d be curious to see how consistent we are on this point
elsewhere before making a point of it.
>
> and also add `(1 row)` information.
Doesn’t seem like
hi.
select * from pg_input_error_info('420', 'integer')
select message, detail from pg_input_error_info('1234.567', 'numeric(7,4)')
I found above two examples at [0] crammed together.
select * from pg_input_error_info('420',
'integer')
