On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 8:48 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I wonder if we shouldn't be using errtablecol() here instead of (in
> > addition to?) patching the errmsg() to include the table name.
>
> > Discussion: If we really like having the table names in errtable(), then
> > we should have psql display it by default, and other tools will follow
> > suit; in that case we should remove the table name from error messages,
> > or at least not add it to even more messages.
>
> > If we instead think that errtable() is there just for programmatically
> > knowing the affected table, then we should add the table name to all
> > errmsg() where relevant, as in the patch under discussion.
>
> > What do others think?
>
> I believe that the intended use of errtable() and friends is so that
> applications don't have to parse those names out of a human-friendly
> message. We should add calls to them in cases where (a) an application
> can tell from the SQLSTATE that some particular table is involved
> and (b) it's likely that the app would wish to know which table that is.
> I don't feel a need to sprinkle every single ereport() in the backend
> with errtable(), just ones where there's a plausible use-case for the
> extra cycles that will be spent.
>
> On the other side of the coin, whether we use errtable() is not directly
> a factor in deciding what the human-friendly messages should say.
> I do find it hard to envision a case where we'd want to use errtable()
> and *not* put the table name in the error message, just because if
> applications need to know something then humans probably do too.
>
makes sense.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com