pg.ddx.io pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
19+ messages / 6 participants
[nested] [flat]
Commits from this thread:
2020-09-30 5b76e8fb67 49433744ff 9fc2122712 f669ba7bdb Reword partitioning error message
2020-09-30 2b888647d8 5610ffaf00 5c7afb4a29 ab0c9c0735 Doc: Improve clarity on partitioned table limitations
* ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 21:36 Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Nagaraj Raj @ 2020-09-29 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-bugs
I recently upgraded the database from PostgreSQL v9.6 to v11.7. we have some partitioned table with `inherence` and planning to migrate them to the `declaration`.
Table DDL:
CREATE TABLE c_account_p( billing_account_guid character varying(40) NOT NULL, ingestion_process_id bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT '-1'::integer, load_dttm timestamp(6) without time zone NOT NULL, ban integer NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT billing_account_pkey PRIMARY KEY (billing_account_guid, ban)) PARTITION by RANGE(load_dttm);
When I try the create table, it's throwing below error:
ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definitionDETAIL: PRIMARY KEY constraint on table "l_billing_account_p" lacks column "load_dttm" which is part of the partition key.SQL state: 0A000
Is it mandatory/necessary that the `partition column` should be a primary key? cause if I include `load_dttm` as `PK` then its working fine.
If the partition column should be supposed to be a PK, it's challenging to create a partition by range with the date column, cause the load_dttm column chances to have duplicate if data loaded `COPY`.
Could some please help me to understand this scenario? https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_11&fiddle=5000c4602c16350d77974868e62dc7c9
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 21:41 Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
parent: Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Nagaraj Raj @ 2020-09-29 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-bugs
Added three scenarios, Postgres 11 | db<>fiddle
|
|
| |
Postgres 11 | db<>fiddle
Free online SQL environment for experimenting and sharing.
|
|
|
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 02:36:17 PM PDT, Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com> wrote:
I recently upgraded the database from PostgreSQL v9.6 to v11.7. we have some partitioned table with `inherence` and planning to migrate them to the `declaration`.
Table DDL:
CREATE TABLE c_account_p( billing_account_guid character varying(40) NOT NULL, ingestion_process_id bigint NOT NULL DEFAULT '-1'::integer, load_dttm timestamp(6) without time zone NOT NULL, ban integer NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT billing_account_pkey PRIMARY KEY (billing_account_guid, ban)) PARTITION by RANGE(load_dttm);
When I try the create table, it's throwing below error:
ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definitionDETAIL: PRIMARY KEY constraint on table "l_billing_account_p" lacks column "load_dttm" which is part of the partition key.SQL state: 0A000
Is it mandatory/necessary that the `partition column` should be a primary key? cause if I include `load_dttm` as `PK` then its working fine.
If the partition column should be supposed to be a PK, it's challenging to create a partition by range with the date column, cause the load_dttm column chances to have duplicate if data loaded `COPY`.
Could some please help me to understand this scenario? https://dbfiddle.uk/?rdbms=postgres_11&fiddle=5000c4602c16350d77974868e62dc7c9
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 22:05 David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
parent: Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: David Rowley @ 2020-09-29 22:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; +Cc: pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 10:36, Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is it mandatory/necessary that the `partition column` should be a primary key? cause if I include `load_dttm` as `PK` then its working fine.
Yes, this is required. There is no concept of an index over all
partitions in PostgreSQL. The requirement of having the partition key
a subset of the primary key allows us to implement primary keys by
just having individual unique indexes on each partition. The fact
that it does not work is not a bug.
There's mention in [1] section 5.10.2.3. "Unique constraints on
partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns. This
limitation exists because PostgreSQL can only enforce uniqueness in
each partition individually.". That text likely should also mention
PRIMARY KEY constraints. That probably should be changed
David
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/ddl-partitioning.html
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 22:22 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2020-09-29 22:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 10:36, Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is it mandatory/necessary that the `partition column` should be a primary key? cause if I include `load_dttm` as `PK` then its working fine.
> Yes, this is required.
Indeed. However, this complaint shows that the error message is not clear
enough. I propose changing it to
ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must be a superset of the partitioning columns
or perhaps
ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns
The DETAIL seems fine as-is:
DETAIL: PRIMARY KEY constraint on table "l_billing_account_p" lacks column "load_dttm" which is part of the partition key.
> There's mention in [1] section 5.10.2.3. "Unique constraints on
> partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns. This
> limitation exists because PostgreSQL can only enforce uniqueness in
> each partition individually.". That text likely should also mention
> PRIMARY KEY constraints. That probably should be changed
Meh. If you've read that bit you probably already understand that
pkeys are unique constraints. I think the problem is with the error
text not the docs.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 22:29 David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: David Rowley @ 2020-09-29 22:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 11:22, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 10:36, Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Is it mandatory/necessary that the `partition column` should be a primary key? cause if I include `load_dttm` as `PK` then its working fine.
>
> > Yes, this is required.
>
> Indeed. However, this complaint shows that the error message is not clear
> enough. I propose changing it to
>
> ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must be a superset of the partitioning columns
>
> or perhaps
>
> ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns
I prefer the former. Although I'd rather see the constraint type
mentioned explicitly rather than using the word "unique" regardless of
what the constraint type is.
> The DETAIL seems fine as-is:
>
> DETAIL: PRIMARY KEY constraint on table "l_billing_account_p" lacks column "load_dttm" which is part of the partition key.
>
> > There's mention in [1] section 5.10.2.3. "Unique constraints on
> > partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns. This
> > limitation exists because PostgreSQL can only enforce uniqueness in
> > each partition individually.". That text likely should also mention
> > PRIMARY KEY constraints. That probably should be changed
>
> Meh. If you've read that bit you probably already understand that
> pkeys are unique constraints. I think the problem is with the error
> text not the docs.
I think you're assuming too much. If you don't think too hard about
it, it might seem reasonable that we can implement something for a
primary key constraint, because there can only be at most 1 per table,
but not a unique constraint there can be any number.
David
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 22:37 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2020-09-29 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 11:22, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Indeed. However, this complaint shows that the error message is not clear
>> enough. I propose changing it to
>> ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must be a superset of the partitioning columns
>> or perhaps
>> ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns
> I prefer the former. Although I'd rather see the constraint type
> mentioned explicitly rather than using the word "unique" regardless of
> what the constraint type is.
If the DETAIL has that, which it does, I'd rather have the primary text
lay out the general rule not a specific case. Anybody who is not clear
that a pkey is a kind of unique constraint will get that from reading the
DETAIL. Also, avoiding that insertion should allow more robust
translation of the primary message, which is something we should worry
about if we are concerned that users won't understand the message.
FWIW, after a few minutes' more thought I think I like the second wording;
it's just as precise and does not rely on two-dollar words. I'm not dead
set on it though.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 22:39 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2020-09-29 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
On 2020-Sep-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Indeed. However, this complaint shows that the error message is not clear
> enough. I propose changing it to
>
> ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must be a superset of the partitioning columns
>
> or perhaps
>
> ERROR: unique constraint on partitioned table must include all partitioning columns
Either of those work for me. How common is the word "superset" in
English? We don't seem seem to use it either in error messages, though
it does occur in docs.
> > There's mention in [1] section 5.10.2.3. "Unique constraints on
> > partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns. This
> > limitation exists because PostgreSQL can only enforce uniqueness in
> > each partition individually.". That text likely should also mention
> > PRIMARY KEY constraints. That probably should be changed
>
> Meh. If you've read that bit you probably already understand that
> pkeys are unique constraints. I think the problem is with the error
> text not the docs.
Maybe mention PKs in parens:
"Unique constraints (and[, by extension,] primary key constraints) on
partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns. This
limitation exists because PostgreSQL can only enforce uniqueness in each
partition individually.". That text likely should also mention PRIMARY
KEY constraints. That probably should be changed
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 22:43 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2020-09-29 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; +Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2020-Sep-29, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Meh. If you've read that bit you probably already understand that
>> pkeys are unique constraints. I think the problem is with the error
>> text not the docs.
> Maybe mention PKs in parens:
> "Unique constraints (and[, by extension,] primary key constraints) on
> partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns. This
> limitation exists because PostgreSQL can only enforce uniqueness in each
> partition individually.".
I don't object to clarifying that (and that wording seems fine), but I
think fixing the error message is more important. We'd not be having this
discussion if the OP had found that documentation.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 23:08 David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: David Rowley @ 2020-09-29 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 11:43, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2020-Sep-29, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Meh. If you've read that bit you probably already understand that
> >> pkeys are unique constraints. I think the problem is with the error
> >> text not the docs.
>
> > Maybe mention PKs in parens:
>
> > "Unique constraints (and[, by extension,] primary key constraints) on
> > partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns. This
> > limitation exists because PostgreSQL can only enforce uniqueness in each
> > partition individually.".
>
> I don't object to clarifying that (and that wording seems fine), but I
> think fixing the error message is more important. We'd not be having this
> discussion if the OP had found that documentation.
I do agree the error message is the first thing we should be changing.
I'll write a doc patch if you handle the error message.
David
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 23:13 David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
parent: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: David Rowley @ 2020-09-29 23:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 12:08, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 11:43, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > > "Unique constraints (and[, by extension,] primary key constraints) on
> > > partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns. This
> > > limitation exists because PostgreSQL can only enforce uniqueness in each
> > > partition individually.".
> >
> > I don't object to clarifying that (and that wording seems fine), but I
> > think fixing the error message is more important. We'd not be having this
> > discussion if the OP had found that documentation.
>
> I do agree the error message is the first thing we should be changing.
>
> I'll write a doc patch if you handle the error message.
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.
David
Attachments:
document_that_pks_must_be_a_superset_of_partition_constraint.patch (application/octet-stream, 661B) download
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
index e890bdd10a..25902dbeef 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml
@@ -4056,8 +4056,8 @@ ALTER INDEX measurement_city_id_logdate_key
<listitem>
<para>
- Unique constraints on partitioned tables must include all the
- partition key columns. This limitation exists because
+ Unique and primary key constraints on partitioned tables must include
+ all the partition key columns. This limitation exists because
<productname>PostgreSQL</productname> can only enforce
uniqueness in each partition individually.
</para>
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 23:21 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2020-09-29 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 12:08, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> "Unique constraints (and[, by extension,] primary key constraints) on
>>> partitioned tables must include all the partition key columns.
> 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.
I kind of like Alvaro's wording because it helps to reinforce the point
that pkeys are a type of unique constraint. If you dislike repeating
"constraints", perhaps we could go with something like
Unique constraints (and hence primary keys) on partitioned tables ...
I'm not hugely against your wording though.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 23:22 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
parent: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2020-09-29 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; +Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
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
Attachments:
0001-Reword-error-message.patch (text/x-diff, 0B) download
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-29 23:53 David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: David Rowley @ 2020-09-29 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 12:21, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I kind of like Alvaro's wording because it helps to reinforce the point
> that pkeys are a type of unique constraint. If you dislike repeating
> "constraints", perhaps we could go with something like
>
> Unique constraints (and hence primary keys) on partitioned tables ...
ok, cool. I'll go with that. Thanks
David
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-30 00:06 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2020-09-30 00:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; +Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> 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.
WFM.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-30 00:12 David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
parent: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: David Rowley @ 2020-09-30 00:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 13:06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> WFM.
Looks good to me too.
David
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-30 00:45 Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
parent: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Nagaraj Raj @ 2020-09-30 00:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; pgsql-bugs
Noted, thank you all.
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 05:12:40 PM PDT, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 13:06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > 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.
>
> WFM.
Looks good to me too.
David
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-30 13:31 Godfrin, Philippe E <Philippe.Godfrin@nov.com>
parent: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Godfrin, Philippe E @ 2020-09-30 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; +Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
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/<https://www.2ndQuadrant.com;
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-30 14:16 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
parent: Godfrin, Philippe E <Philippe.Godfrin@nov.com>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Tom Lane @ 2020-09-30 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Godfrin, Philippe E <Philippe.Godfrin@nov.com>; +Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>; David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
"Godfrin, Philippe E" <Philippe.Godfrin@nov.com> writes:
> I am curious why this is considered Class 0A, versus 42 (syntax error?)
FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED seems perfectly appropriate from here.
What you tried to do is not semantically nonsensical, it's just something
we can't do given the current architecture for partitioned tables.
regards, tom lane
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition
@ 2020-09-30 21:27 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
parent: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: Alvaro Herrera @ 2020-09-30 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; +Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>; pgsql-bugs
On 2020-Sep-30, David Rowley wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 13:06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > > 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.
> >
> > WFM.
>
> Looks good to me too.
Great, thanks, pushed now.
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-09-30 21:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-09-29 21:36 ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
2020-09-29 21:41 ` Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
2020-09-29 22:05 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
2020-09-29 22:22 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2020-09-29 22:29 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
2020-09-29 22:37 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2020-09-29 22:39 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
2020-09-29 22:43 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2020-09-29 23:08 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
2020-09-29 23:13 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
2020-09-29 23:21 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2020-09-29 23:53 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
2020-09-29 23:22 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
2020-09-30 00:06 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
2020-09-30 00:12 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
2020-09-30 00:45 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Nagaraj Raj <nagaraj.sf@yahoo.com>
2020-09-30 21:27 ` Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
2020-09-30 13:31 ` RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Godfrin, Philippe E <Philippe.Godfrin@nov.com>
2020-09-30 14:16 ` Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: ERROR: insufficient columns in the PRIMARY KEY constraint definition Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox