Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message

From: Jan Kundrát <jkt(at)flaska(dot)net>
To: Royce Ausburn <royce(dot)ml(at)inomial(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Review] Include detailed information about a row failing a CHECK constraint into the error message
Date: 2011-11-21 13:59:59
Message-ID: 4ECA595F.6060707@flaska.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 11/16/11 23:13, Royce Ausburn wrote:
> The patch fails the regression tests because it is outputting new DETAIL
> line which four of tests aren't expecting.  The tests will need to be
> updated.

Hi Royce, thanks for your time which you've put into this review.

What is the suggested way to go form here? Shall I update the unit tests?

> One comment I have on the output is that strings are not in quotes.
>  It's a little jarring, but might not be that big a deal.  A contrived
> case that is pretty confusing:
> 
> test=#   insert into test select 1, 2, '3, 4', 4;
> ERROR:  new row for relation "test" violates check constraint "test_b_check"
> DETAIL:  Failing row: (1, 2, 3, 4, 4).
> 
> A select inserting 4 columns seemingly results in a 5 column row ;)

Yes, I agree that the unescaped format of strings leads to ambiguous
results here. The code was copy-pasted from the checks which handle the
UNIQUE constraints, so if there's an obvious improvement, it should
probably be applied in there as well.

> Another super minor thing, postgres doesn't seem to put periods at the
> end of log messages, yet this new detail line does.

Again, I'm not familiar with the correct procedure. Shall I send a
revised patch for this one?

With kind regards,
Jan

-- 
Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2011-11-21 14:05:12
Subject: Re: ToDo: pg_backup - using a conditional DROP
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-11-21 13:18:19
Subject: Re: Singleton range constructors versus functional coercion notation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group