"Dickson S. Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net> wrote:
> Hi Takahiro, i'm the reviewer of your patch, and the following are my
> comments about it:
Thank you for reviewing. An updated patch is attached.
> The patch was applied totalty clean to CVS HEAD and compiled in Ubuntu
> 8.04, Ubuntu 8.10 and AIX 5.3, but failed in follow tests:
> Would be good to modify the outputs to expect a new "DETAIL:" line.
I adjusted expected output of regression test in the new patch.
> I'm thinking if could be better to shows Key (my_key)=(...) instead Key
> (...)=(...) -- well, i don't know how much people uses a key with more
> 512B and how often it is to they don't know wich key it is, (just reading
> a log, for example) to we consider this important.
I modified the format logic to use StringInfo and don't cut off the message
in 512 bytes. Key names and values will be never into '...'. I changed both
both report_unique_violation() and ri_ReportViolation().
> On the other hand there is a comment by Tom  about "to refactor this so
> it's not btree-specific, but could be used by other index AMs"
>  http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-04/msg00234.php
I exported the reporting function to itup.h.
extern void report_unique_violation(Relation rel, IndexTuple itup);
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-07-21 05:08:35|
|Subject: Re: visibility maps and heap_prune|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-07-21 04:51:46|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] SE-PgSQL/tiny rev.2193|