Re: Identifying function-lookup failures due to argument name mismatches

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Identifying function-lookup failures due to argument name mismatches
Date: 2025-09-15 21:02:43
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY252OoQXuMe0rHYJ58-d81M3=KrkEqjYzaXjvQb8Zy5Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 4:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The primary error message is not varying, only the DETAIL/HINT, so
> I find this concern pretty far-fetched. Also, I believe that the
> case that the message intends to help with is very common and so
> it will save a lot of people time, more than enough to outweigh
> any cases where it's perhaps un-optimal.

I'm not entirely convinced, but you could well be right. I do like all
the other detailed diagnostics, I think, I just wasn't sure about that
one. But I'm not really here to argue, just giving my opinion.

> That is the response to
>
> ERROR: function public.dep_req2() does not exist
> LINE 1: SELECT public.dep_req2() || ' req3b'
> ^
> -HINT: No function matches the given name and argument types. You might need to add explicit type casts.
>
> and I omitted the hint/detail because it seems to add nothing,

Yeah, OK, that's fair.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2025-09-15 21:07:47 Re: plan shape work
Previous Message Ilia Evdokimov 2025-09-15 20:46:04 Re: Vacuum statistics