I am curious why this is considered Class 0A, versus 42 (syntax error?)
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 6:22 PM
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
On 2020-Sep-30, David Rowley wrote:
> I didn't go with the same wording. The reason was that I didn't feel
> the word "constraint" had to be mentioned twice.
>
> I won't object if you or Alvaro want to keep Alvaro's suggestion though.
*Shrug* this seems good enough. A purist could complain that it is
redundant, but in practice it's not important.
Here's the proposed error message fix, using the wording that saves
$1.99. I agree that trying to cram the constraint type in the primary
message is uglier.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
