"Gavin Flower" <gavin.flo...@archidevsys.co.nz> writes:
> In the 'INSERT INTO' construct: I think that psql should first check that
> the fields listed after the table name are valid, before checking that the
> number of columns specified is sufficient for the number of expressions.
Hmm ... I think this would just move the set of unpleasant cases around.
Usually I find it's better if we check the count first. For example, if
you accidentally stick an extra value into the VALUES list, and we
weren't checking the count first, you'd likely get weird
invalid-input-value complaints that stem from matching subsequent input
items to the wrong column. In such cases it saves a lot of time if we
first point out the wrong number of values.
> Due to my poor eyesight: it took me a few minutes before I realized that I
> had used a fullstop '.' rather than a comma ',' in the list of columns.
> There is neither a schema, nor a database, called 'id' - so I would have
> thought that pg should have been able to detect the error.
Actually, what you get if you change the number of VALUES columns is:
ERROR: cannot assign to field "pay" of column "id" because its type integer is
not a composite type
LINE 1: INSERT INTO wage (id. pay)
^
This *is* valid syntax, if id is a composite-type column.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
