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: | 2012-12-30 14:37:30 |
Message-ID: | 20121230143729.GM16126@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:
> so - cannot be a solution define CONSTRAINT_TABLE field - constaint
> names in table are unique.
Adding a table column, and a schema column, would be ideal. Those would
all be part of the PK and not null'able, but then we wouldn't
necessairly always return all that information- that's the situation
that we've been talking about.
> sure there is a problem with long names, but I am thinking so it has
> solution - when constraint has no name, then we can try to generate
> name, and when this name is longer than 63 chars, then CREATE
> STATEMENT fails and users should be define name manually - this
> feature should be disabled by guc due compatibility issues.
CREATE doesn't fail if the name is too long today, it truncates it
instead. I continue to feel that's also the wrong thing to do.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-30 14:57:15 | Re: enhanced error fields |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-12-30 12:18:32 | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |