| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Date: | 2013-01-28 20:01:46 |
| Message-ID: | 22418.1359403306@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2013/1/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> ... The current patch provides sufficient
>> information to uniquely identify a table constraint, but not so much
>> domain constraints. Should we fix that? I think it'd be legitimate
>> to re-use SCHEMA_NAME for domain schema, but we'd need a new nonstandard
>> field DOMAIN_NAME (or maybe better DATATYPE_NAME) if we want to fix it.
>> Do we want to add that now?
> should be for me.
> one question - what do you thing about marking proprietary field with
> some prefix - like PG_DOMAIN_NAME ?
Don't particularly see the point of that. It seems quite unlikely that
the ISO committee would invent a field with the same name and a
conflicting definition. Anyway, these names aren't going to be exposed
in any non "proprietary" interfaces AFAICS. Surely we don't, for
instance, need to call the postgres_ext.h macro PG_DIAG_PG_DOMAIN_NAME.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-01-28 20:04:02 | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-01-28 20:00:37 | Re: proposal - assign result of query to psql variable |