* 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

In response to

• Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that at 2013-01-29 03:23:57 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2013-01-29 14:10:35
	Subject: Re: [sepgsql 2/3] Add db_schema:search permission checks
Previous:	From: Kohei KaiGai	Date: 2013-01-29 13:30:10
	Subject: Re: [sepgsql 2/3] Add db_schema:search permission checks