On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> My own preference for what to do about this is to leave the primary
> message texts alone and add additional error-message fields for object
> name and schema. This would address the need without making messages
> uglier for the large fraction of users who don't really care; and it
> would also help us get closer to the SQL standard's expectations for
> error reporting.
This might help people who use tools to parse the output, but I'm not
sure that's who is having this problem. Presumably a sufficiently
well-written tool can also keep track of which schema it was targeting
in the first place. I have some reservations about cluttering up all
of our error messages with schema names, but the status quo is pretty
bad for people who have a whole bunch of nearly-identical schemas and
are trying to divine to which one of them a particular error message
pertains.
...Robert
