Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Abel Abraham Camarillo Ojeda <acamari(at)verlet(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Extra check in 9.0 exclusion constraint unintended consequences
Date: 2011-07-08 04:58:20
Message-ID: 1310101100.3012.160.camel@jdavis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 12:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think it's probably too late to go fiddling with the behavior of 9.0
> at this point. If we change the text of error messages, there is a
> chance that it might break applications; it would also require those
> messages to be re-translated, and I don't think the issue is really
> important enough to justify a change.

Good point on the error messages -- I didn't really think of that as a
big deal.

> I am happy to see us document
> it better, though, since it's pretty clear that there is more
> likelihood of hitting that error than we might have suspected at the
> outset.

Doc patch attached, but I'm not attached to the wording. Remember that
we only need to update the 9.0 docs, I don't think you want to apply
this to master (though I'm not sure how this kind of thing is normally
handled).

Regards,
Jeff Davis

Attachment Content-Type Size
excl-oper-doc.patch.gz application/x-gzip 660 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2011-07-08 05:28:59 Re: [HACKERS] Creating temp tables inside read only transactions
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2011-07-08 04:31:31 proposal: new contrib module plpgsql's embeded sql validator