Re: Better handling of parse errors

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Better handling of parse errors
Date: 2002-08-14 05:21:34
Message-ID: 200208140521.g7E5LYu01219@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


I don't think anyone will mind, but you can throw a message to 'general'
just to be sure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gavin Sherry wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I was working on this on the train this morning. There are a few
> possibilities I'd like to look at before I submit another patch.
>
> Before I do, there is one important question that I didn't raise when I
> submitted the first patch (which was only a proof of concept kind of
> patch). Namely: do we want to modify every 7.2 error message? Many people
> have written error message parsers into their applications to make up for
> the fact that Postgres doesn't use error codes or issue 'standardised'
> error messages.
>
> Is this going to annoy people too much? Should it be delayed until we have
> SQL99 diagnostics/error codes?
>
> Gavin
>
> On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > Gavin, have you answered these issues brought up about the patch?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > > > Attached is a small patch to scan.l for consideration. It hands
> > > > yyerror() the position in the query string of the token which caused a
> > > > parse error.
> > >
> > > Isn't that the hard way to do it? Seems like you could just subtract
> > > scanbuf from the error pointer, instead of adding overhead to the basic
> > > lex loop.
> > >
> > > Things that need to be decided (and documented somewhere):
> > >
> > > Is the number an offset (counted from 0) or an index (counted from 1)?
> > > Which end of the token does it point at? Can the message be phrased
> > > so as to make it reasonably clear what the number is?
> > >
> > >
> > > A related change I'd been meaning to make is to get it to say
> > > parse error at end of input
> > > when that's the case, rather than the rather useless
> > > parse error at or near ""
> > > that you get now. I'd still be inclined to just say "end of input"
> > > in that case, and not bother with a character count.
> > >
> > > regards, tom lane
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-14 05:23:30 Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TEMP TABLE .... ON COMMIT
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2002-08-14 05:19:54 Re: Better handling of parse errors

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-08-14 05:23:30 Re: [HACKERS] CREATE TEMP TABLE .... ON COMMIT
Previous Message Gavin Sherry 2002-08-14 05:19:54 Re: Better handling of parse errors