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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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