Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> Or we could apply Peter's patch more or less as-is, but I don't like
>> that. I don't think it solves the stated problem: if you know that CASE
>> branches 3 and 5 don't match, that still doesn't help you in a monster
>> query with lots of CASEs. I think we can and must do better.
> Do we have something more helpful than "branches 3 and 5"?
That's exactly the point of discussion. A parser location is what we
need, the problem is that this patch doesn't provide it.
> Perhaps printing the actual transformed expressions?
Don't think it solves the problem either. For instance, if there are
a hundred references to variable X in your query, printing "X" isn't
going to get you far.
regards, tom lane