| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Date: | 2012-12-29 20:00:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20121229200051.GB16126@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > Having just constraint_schema and constraint_name feels horribly wrong
> > as the definition of a constraint also includes a pg_class oid.
>
> but then TABLE_NAME and TABLE_SCHEMA will be defined.
How are you going to look up the constraint? Using constraint_schema,
table_name, and constraint_name? Or table_schema, table_name and
constraint_name? When do you use constraint_schema instead of
table_schema?
None of those options is exactly clear or understandable...
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-29 20:07:01 | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-29 19:57:38 | Re: enhanced error fields |