Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The actual error, from the perspective of the user, is something like
>> ERROR: "someview" is a view
>> DETAIL: Views cannot have constraints.
> OK. "%s is a %s" is a reasonable set of errors -- we just need one for
> each relkind. So the first one is easy.
> But the second one is not easy, because we'd need one message per
> relkind per operation kind. We cannot possibly write/translate that
> many messages. If we make the relkind generic in the errdetail message,
> maybe it can work; something like "Relations of that type cannot have
> constraints" would work, for example. Or "Relations of type "view"
> cannot have constraints", although this reads very strangely. Maybe
> someone has a better idea?
I think Peter's got the error and the detail backwards. It should be
more like
ERROR: "someview" cannot have constraints
DETAIL: "someview" is a view.
If we do it like that, we need one ERROR message per error reason,
and one DETAIL per relkind, which should be manageable.
A more verbose approach is
ERROR: "someview" cannot have constraints
DETAIL: "someview" is a view, which is not a supported kind of relation
for this purpose.
regards, tom lane