On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In the
> second place, the reason most of our messages don't already contain
> schema names is that in the past we've judged it would be mostly
> clutter; and given the infrequency of complaints I see no reason to
> change that opinion.
Well, FWIW, I also would like to be able to see which schema caused
the violation, as I'm in a similar boat of having the same table name
in multiple schemas.
