From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
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 14:57:15 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRBoE7A34+Y1zK8ihgZuh9bh9HZuHnz=Te1E29TQAi9J4g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2012/12/30 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> * 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.
probably it is far to ideal - but I have not any feedback about
related problems in production.
Regards
Pavel Stehule
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-30 16:22:47 | Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2012-12-30 14:37:30 | Re: enhanced error fields |