Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb:
>On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan
>> Ascertaining the identity of the object in question perfectly
>> unambiguously, so that you can safely do something like lookup a
>> comment on the object, seems like something way beyond what I'd
>> envisioned for this feature. Why should the comment be useful in an
>> error handler anyway? At best, that seems like a nice-to-have extra
>> me. The vast majority are not even going to think about the ambiguity
>> that may exist. They'll just write:
>> if (constraint_name == "upc")
>> MessageBox("That is not a valid barcode.");
>The people who are content to do that don't need this patch at all.
>They can just apply a regexp to the message that comes back from the
>server and then set constraint_name based on what pops out of the
>regex. And then do just what you did there.
Easier said than done if you're dealing with pg installations with different lc_messages...
Please excuse the brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Boszormenyi Zoltan||Date: 2013-01-04 17:27:35|
|Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed
via SQL [review]|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2013-01-04 17:12:20|
|Subject: Re: enhanced error fields|