Re: [HACKERS] Policy on schema-qualified names

2006-01-31 Thread Joachim Wieland
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 05:10:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Joachim Wieland wrote: I wonder if there is a policy on when schema-qualified names should be used in ereport/elog messages. If it's not too hard to do, I would add the schema name in

Re: [HACKERS] Policy on schema-qualified names

2006-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
Joachim Wieland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Making assumptions on the length of an error message seems to be moot anyway, since you don't know the length of the names of user defined objects in advance, nor do you know the length of the translated message strings in different languages. It's

Re: [HACKERS] Policy on schema-qualified names

2006-01-31 Thread Joachim Wieland
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 01:46:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: The direction that we ought to be going in is to add separate fields to error reports that contain just the names of the relevant objects (without any other decoration). This is needed anyway to allow client-side programs to extract

[HACKERS] Policy on schema-qualified names

2006-01-30 Thread Joachim Wieland
I wonder if there is a policy on when schema-qualified names should be used in ereport/elog messages. At the moment this doesn't seem to be consistent, even within the same command: template1=# VACUUM verbose t; INFO: vacuuming public.t [...] template1=# VACUUM verbose tv; WARNING: skipping

Re: [HACKERS] Policy on schema-qualified names

2006-01-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Joachim Wieland wrote: I wonder if there is a policy on when schema-qualified names should be used in ereport/elog messages. If it's not too hard to do, I would add the schema name in most places. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of