Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari(at)verlet(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences
Date: 2011-07-09 02:51:58
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYR2TQHxa=PqcN=J7e3eTPd4ajK0GcvXPCFoisUaHmXhg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 12:58 AM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 12:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think it's probably too late to go fiddling with the behavior of 9.0
>> at this point.  If we change the text of error messages, there is a
>> chance that it might break applications; it would also require those
>> messages to be re-translated, and I don't think the issue is really
>> important enough to justify a change.
>
> Good point on the error messages -- I didn't really think of that as a
> big deal.
>
>> I am happy to see us document
>> it better, though, since it's pretty clear that there is more
>> likelihood of hitting that error than we might have suspected at the
>> outset.
>
> Doc patch attached, but I'm not attached to the wording. Remember that
> we only need to update the 9.0 docs, I don't think you want to apply
> this to master (though I'm not sure how this kind of thing is normally
> handled).

I'm wondering if we might want to call this out with a <note> or
similar... especially if we're only going to put it into the 9.0
docs.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-07-09 03:27:18 Re: [HACKERS] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-07-09 02:27:12 Re: dropping table in testcase alter_table.sql