On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 23:22 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On tor, 2010-01-21 at 15:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> >> > > wrote: >> > >> Here is a small patch that changes the error message >> > >> >> > >> duplicate key value violates unique constraint "%s" >> > >> >> > >> into >> > >> >> > >> duplicate key value violates primary key "%s" >> > >> >> > >> when the constraint is in fact a primary key. >> > >> >> > >> Comments? >> > >> > > Why bother? And why bother now, when we're in the middle of the last >> > > CommitFest and trying to move toward a release? >> > >> > This patch fails to cover all cases (index build being the obvious >> > omission, but I think there might be other paths as well where the >> > information is not so readily available). >> >> This is the user-visible error message, and that's the only place it's >> generated. > > In general, I agree that some error messages could be better. > > OTOH this kind of gradual and minor creep between releases is very > annoying for our users, since you cannot rely on things remaining the > same between releases. That costs people lots of money and isn't worth > the marginal benefit, or alternatively prevents upgrades because of the > need for application and admin tool recoding and retesting. "Stable > software" isn't just software that doesn't break, it requires IIABDFI as > well.
Well put. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
