Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: enhanced error fields

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(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: 2013-01-29 14:20:34
Message-ID: 5107DAB2.6010105@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 1/28/13 11:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The issue is that
> this definition presupposes that we want to complain about a table or
> a domain, never both, because we're overloading both the SCHEMA_NAME
> and CONSTRAINT_NAME fields for both purposes.  This is annoying in
> validateDomainConstraint(), where we know the domain constraint that
> we're complaining about and also the table/column containing the bad
> value.  We can't fill in both TABLE_NAME and DATATYPE_NAME because
> they both want to set SCHEMA_NAME, and perhaps not to the same value.

I think any error should only complain about one object, in this case
the domain.  The table, in this case, is more like a context stack item.


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kohei KaiGaiDate: 2013-01-29 14:39:39
Subject: Re: [sepgsql 2/3] Add db_schema:search permission checks
Previous:From: Amit KapilaDate: 2013-01-29 14:11:49
Subject: Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group