From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that |
Date: | 2013-01-29 13:42:55 |
Message-ID: | 20130129134255.GU16126@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > 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.
Perhaps I wasn't clear previously, but this is precisely what I had been
argueing for upthread..
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-29 14:10:35 | Re: [sepgsql 2/3] Add db_schema:search permission checks |
Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-01-29 13:30:10 | Re: [sepgsql 2/3] Add db_schema:search permission checks |