From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(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>, "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: | 2013-01-28 20:04:02 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAQKMtbppgjZ=AWXzXXX7+b3-thUYq=uSfhuuuBT+7vCA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/1/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2013/1/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> ... The current patch provides sufficient
>>> information to uniquely identify a table constraint, but not so much
>>> domain constraints. Should we fix that? I think it'd be legitimate
>>> to re-use SCHEMA_NAME for domain schema, but we'd need a new nonstandard
>>> field DOMAIN_NAME (or maybe better DATATYPE_NAME) if we want to fix it.
>>> Do we want to add that now?
>
>> should be for me.
>
>> one question - what do you thing about marking proprietary field with
>> some prefix - like PG_DOMAIN_NAME ?
>
> Don't particularly see the point of that. It seems quite unlikely that
> the ISO committee would invent a field with the same name and a
> conflicting definition. Anyway, these names aren't going to be exposed
> in any non "proprietary" interfaces AFAICS. Surely we don't, for
> instance, need to call the postgres_ext.h macro PG_DIAG_PG_DOMAIN_NAME.
ok
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dean Rasheed | 2013-01-28 20:32:02 | Re: Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-28 20:01:46 | Re: enhanced error fields |