Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors
Date: 2011-07-18 19:08:05
Message-ID: 4E248495.20505@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-07-18 19:09:21 Re: per-column generic option
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2011-07-18 19:06:40 Re: Reduced power consumption in autovacuum launcher process