On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > scott.marlowe writes:
> >> but I get basically the same thing if I dump it to a .sql file and do:
> >> psql dbname <dbname.sql
>
> > Use psql -f dbname.sql instead.
>
> This doesn't seem like a good argument not to add more information to
> the CONTEXT line for COPY errors. Sure, in theory the existing info
> should be sufficient, but what if the information is not coming in
> through psql? (For instance, maybe the COPY data is being generated
> on-the-fly by some other program.) Or what if the dump file is so large
> you can't easily edit it to determine which line number is in question?
> There are plenty of scenarios where it's not all that convenient to
> triangulate on a problem from outside information. Minimalism isn't
> really a virtue in error reports anyway.
>
> I'm thinking maybe:
>
> CONTEXT: COPY tablename, line 41: "data ..."
>
> would serve the purpose nicely.
Yeah, just having the table name and line number would be plenty for me.
It's the lack of a table name that makes it so frustrating. I had to
basically dump / restore the tables one at a time to figure out which one
was causing the error. On a database with hundreds of tables, that could
be painful.