Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that

> Tom Lane Wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On 29 January 2013 00:25, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I can see the case for fixing this, but I don't feel that it's
> > particularly important that constraints be uniquely identifiable from
> > the proposed new errdata fields.
>
> I think that we'll soon be buried in gripes if they're not. Pretty much
the
> whole point of this patch is to allow applications to get rid of ad-hoc,
it-
> usually-works coding techniques. I'd argue that not checking the entire
> constraint identity is about as fragile as trying to "sed"
> the constraint name out of a potentially-localized error message.
> In both cases, it often works fine, until the application's context
changes.

+1 here too. I'm feel I'm quite close to the front of the queue of
application developers waiting on enhances error fields. I'd personally
rather I noticed my application was broken during an testing an upgrade to
9.3 than somewhere down the line. I can't imagine renaming a constraint to
upgrade to 9.3 is going to be a showstopper for anyone.

Perhaps the release notes can contain a query to allow users to check this
pre-upgrade.

Regards
David Rowley

>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --