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

Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
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 03:36:38
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY=ZP9TSLzpQcSRf2NzkVovdS0SjCV1EOz0aD6sY83_tQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

+1.

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


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Noah MischDate: 2013-01-29 03:48:37
Subject: Re: Re: Doc patch making firm recommendation for settingthe value of commit_delay
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2013-01-29 03:35:22
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables

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