| From: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix GRAPH TABLE label and property error reporting |
| Date: | 2026-08-27 13:33:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAA5RZ0sC4NEGamaOMrzMGHEyVGOznhRd1sYnq1NdDaB70Ruhfg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > I was wrong. It's not specified in the syntax rules. Your change is
> > correct. In fact transformLabelExpr() does use
> > ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT for missing labels. I also agree with your
> > reasoning behind not using ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_COLUMN.
>
> ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_COLUMN is a subclass of syntax error, so I'm not sure
> this analysis is really valid.
I only meant that the specific error code ERRCODE_SYNTAX_ERROR is wrong here.
The query has valid syntax, and the failure happens later when looking up the
property name in the property graph, so ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT still looked
like the best fit, also for consistency with transformLabelExpr().
--
Sami
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2026-08-27 13:56:34 | REPACK (ANALYZE) within transaction block segfaults |
| Previous Message | torikoshia | 2026-08-27 13:22:03 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |