From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Better error message for select_common_type() |
Date: | 2007-04-23 22:18:18 |
Message-ID: | 200704240018.18611.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 on using the parser location mechanism and avoiding the
> terminology problem altogether.
I figured we would let the parser only point to the UNION or VALUES or
whatever word. It would be fairly cumbersome to drag the individual
expression positions down into select_common_value() for full
precision.
> I fear though that we're not set up
> to have multiple locations in one error report. Will it be
> sufficient if we point at one of the two offending expressions? (I'd
> guess pointing at the second makes the most sense, if feasible.)
I don't think that would help. In the example I was looking at 90
expression and I had no idea in most cases what their results types
are, so if it tells me that the 15th expression somewhere doesn't
match, I would need to know which is the other mismatching one.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-04-23 22:20:08 | Re: Wild idea: 9.0? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-04-23 22:17:49 | Re: [HACKERS] Wild idea: 9.0? |