| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Macros bundling RELKIND_* conditions |
| Date: | 2018-12-19 18:07:31 |
| Message-ID: | 20181219180731.4hgyde3cq6quhmk6@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-Aug-02, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think Peter's got the error and the detail backwards. It should be
> more like
>
> ERROR: "someview" cannot have constraints
> DETAIL: "someview" is a view.
>
> If we do it like that, we need one ERROR message per error reason,
> and one DETAIL per relkind, which should be manageable.
I support this idea. Here's a proof-of-concept patch that corresponds
to one of the cases that Ashutosh was on about (specifically, the one
that uses the RELKIND_CAN_HAVE_STORAGE macro I just added). If there
are no objections to this approach, I'm going to complete it along these
lines.
I put the new function at the bottom of heapam.c but I think it probably
needs a better place.
BTW are there other opinions on the RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE vs.
RELKIND_CAN_HAVE_STORAGE debate? I'm inclined to change it to the
former.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| unsuitable.patch | text/x-diff | 3.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-12-19 18:29:48 | Re: [HACKERS] Macros bundling RELKIND_* conditions |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-12-19 18:06:37 | Re: single user mode -P option is ignored |