On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@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 <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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