| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Date: | 2012-12-29 21:15:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20121229211521.GF16126@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* 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.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-29 21:24:43 | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-29 21:10:10 | Re: enhanced error fields |