Re: Better error messages for %TYPE and %ROWTYPE in plpgsql
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Better error messages for %TYPE and %ROWTYPE in plpgsql |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwZaQOL2wMT=gGvtWWPcF1Gd9mb6vrxzicUtc=xdFEDEYw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Better error messages for %TYPE and %ROWTYPE in plpgsql (Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 6:54 PM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com> wrote:
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 5:46 PM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com> wrote:
>
> > Per recent discussion[1], plpgsql returns fairly unhelpful "syntax
> > error" messages when a %TYPE or %ROWTYPE construct references a
> > nonexistent object. Here's a quick little finger exercise to try
> > to improve that.
>
> Looks this modify the error message, I want to know how ould we treat
> error-message-compatible issue during minor / major upgrade.
>
> There is no bug here so no back-patch; and we are not yet past feature freeze for v17.
Acutally I didn't asked about back-patch.
What else should I be understanding when you write the words "minor upgrade"?
So if the error message is changed, the above code may be broken.
A fair point to bring up, and is change-specific. User-facing error messages should be informative and where they are not changing them is reasonable. Runtime errors probably need more restraint since they are more likely to be in a production monitoring alerting system but anything that is reporting what amounts to a syntax error should be reasonable to change and not expect people to be writing production code looking for them. This seems to fall firmly into the "badly written code"/syntax category.
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: