Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Tom,
>> No, I don't. You're adding complication to solve a problem that doesn't
>> need to be solved. The standard says to return the name of the
>> constraint for a constraint-violation failure. It does not say anything
>> about naming the associated column(s). COLUMN_NAME is only supposed to
>> be defined for certain kinds of errors, and this isn't one of them.

> Are we talking about FK constraints here, or CHECK contstraints?

Either one. They both have the potential to reference more than one
column, so if the committee had meant errors to try to identify the
referenced columns, they'd have put something other than COLUMN_NAME
into the standard. They didn't.

regards, tom lane