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
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 |