RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
Godfrin, Philippe E <philippe.godfrin@nov.com>
From: "Godfrin, Philippe E" <Philippe.Godfrin@nov.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-09-30T13:31:35Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
I am curious why this is considered Class 0A, versus 42 (syntax error?) From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 6:22 PM To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition On 2020-Sep-30, David Rowley wrote: > I didn't go with the same wording. The reason was that I didn't feel > the word "constraint" had to be mentioned twice. > > I won't object if you or Alvaro want to keep Alvaro's suggestion though. *Shrug* this seems good enough. A purist could complain that it is redundant, but in practice it's not important. Here's the proposed error message fix, using the wording that saves $1.99. I agree that trying to cram the constraint type in the primary message is uglier. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/<https://www.2ndQuadrant.com> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Reword partitioning error message
- f669ba7bdb00 12.5 landed
- 9fc212271289 14.0 landed
- 5b76e8fb675e 11.10 landed
- 49433744ff65 13.1 landed
-
Doc: Improve clarity on partitioned table limitations
- ab0c9c073563 11.10 landed
- 5c7afb4a29aa 12.5 landed
- 5610ffaf00a5 13.1 landed
- 2b888647d864 14.0 landed