2012/12/29 Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> it is a problem of this patch or not consistent constraints implementation ?
> Not sure, but I don't think it matters. You can blame the constraint
> implementation, but that doesn't change my feelings about what we need
> before we can accept a patch like this. Providing something which works
> only part of the time and then doesn't work for very unclear reasons
> isn't a good idea. Perhaps we need to fix the constraint implementation
> and perhaps we need to fix the error information being returned, or most
> likely we have to fix both, it doesn't change that we need to do
> something more than just ignore this problem.
so we have to solve this issue first. Please, can you do resume, what
is and where is current constraint implementation raise
when we will fix constraints, maybe we can use some infrastructure for
enhanced error fields. What about partial commit now - just necessary
infrastructure without modification of other code - I am thinking so
there is agreement on new fields: column_name, table_name,
schema_name, constraint_name and constraint_schema?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2013-01-13 06:54:11|
|Subject: is it bug? - printing boolean domains in sql/xml function|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2013-01-13 06:05:04|
|Subject: Re: Enabling Checksums|