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.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
