On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:31 PM Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2019 at 09:53, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:05 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do we have an actual patch here?
> > >
> >
> > We have a patch, but it needs some more work like finding similar
> > places and change all of them at the same time and then change the
> > tests to adapt the same.
> >
>
> Hi all,
> Based on above discussion, I tried to find out all the places where we need to change error for "not null
constraint". As Amit Kapila pointed out 1 place, I changed the error and adding modified patch.
>
It seems you have not used the two error codes
(ERRCODE_NOT_NULL_VIOLATION and ERRCODE_CHECK_VIOLATION) pointed by me
above.
> What does this patch?
> Before this patch, to display error of "not-null constraint", we were not displaying relation name in some cases so
attachedpatch is adding relation name with the "not-null constraint" error in 2 places. I didn't changed out files of
testsuite as we haven't finalized error messages.
>
> I verified Robert's point of for partition tables also. With the error, we are adding relation name of "child table"
andi think, it is correct.
>
Can you show the same with the help of an example?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
