| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-26 00:29:24 |
| Message-ID: | 18178.1259195364@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 09:02 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I disagree wholeheartedly. :-) My ideal error message is something like:
>>
>> DETAIL: (a, b, c)=(1, 2, 3) conflicts with (a, b, c)=(4, 5, 6)
> Ok, fair enough. But how do you feel about:
> (a: 1, b: 2, c: 3)
> as a tuple representation instead?
This seems like change for the sake of change. We've been reporting
this type of error (in the context of foreign keys) using the first
syntax for a very long time. I don't feel a need to rearrange it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-11-26 00:32:04 | Re: float value is rounded |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2009-11-26 00:07:59 | Re: Application name patch - v3 |