"Rob S." <rslifka(at)home(dot)com> writes:
>> ... I thought this pointed up the need we've
>> been aware of for awhile to overhaul our error reporting.
> I'm not sure exactly where the error checking comes in. I've been using
> Postgres in two places - at home (Apache/Tomcat) and at work (Apache/iASP)
> for the last 8 months or so. The only gripe I have with error messages is
> that they could be more specific. "Error near <some character that occurs
> 20+ times in the query>" is usually pretty useless =) Otherwise, I can't
> recall a single time where I said, "man that message should be more clear".
The thing is that any error that the database itself issues is probably
database-centric; it may be helpful to the person coding the application,
but is unlikely to make a lot of sense to an end user. So well-coded
apps typically want to substitute their own error messages --- say,
"please enter a positive value" rather than "rejected due to CHECK
constraint foo". We need to provide more support for that. A
consistent numbering scheme for error codes would help, for instance,
so that apps could just look at the error number and not be dependent
on pattern-matching against strings that the developers might reword
from time to time.
As I said, this has been on the todo list for awhile...
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-11-03 16:10:55|
|Subject: Re: AW: LIMIT in DECLARE CURSOR: request for comments |
|Previous:||From: Christof Petig||Date: 2000-11-03 15:47:11|
|Subject: Re: AW: Re: [GENERAL] Query caching|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Isaac||Date: 2000-11-03 16:09:15|
|Subject: structuring database for multilingual content|
|Previous:||From: Ned Lilly||Date: 2000-11-03 15:07:39|
|Subject: live chat on associative model databases (starts 11:00 ET today)|