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

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

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that
Date: 2013-01-29 00:33:48
Message-ID: CAEYLb_VnF9n=dKKmZ-eMixr_1kAa1pDHpxYQ9bm_wox8M+GBTQ@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 29 January 2013 00:25, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Of course this wouldn't be material for back-patching, but it seems to
> me there's still time to fix this for 9.3, and we should do so if we
> want to claim that the enhanced-errors patch uniquely identifies
> constraints.

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.

-- 
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2013-01-29 01:57:32
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v4
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2013-01-29 00:25:05
Subject: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that

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