Re: Better error message for select_common_type()

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/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?