| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: notice about costly ri checks (2) |
| Date: | 2004-03-05 21:55:55 |
| Message-ID: | 11681.1078523755@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
>> Why should we make them guess which column is the problem, when we know
>> it perfectly well?
> As a side question, if there are multiple cross-type conversions in one
> constraint on different column pairs, what do we think the message should
> be? One message with multiple column mentions in detail or multiple
> notices? (I haven't looked at the patch to see if one or the other is
> easier with how it's set up)
I would expect it to generate one WARNING for each mismatch; doing
anything else would make life a lot more complex, both as to writing the
code and as to formatting the output readably.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-03-05 22:06:16 | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-05 21:48:58 | Re: [HACKERS] Another crack at doing a Win32 |