| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: minimal update |
| Date: | 2008-10-30 02:44:54 |
| Message-ID: | 3201.1225334694@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Not sure that's appropriate, but I can't see anything else that is
>> very appropriate either.
> The plpgsql code uses errcode(ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED) for this
> situation, so I guess we should be consistent with that.
TRIGGERED_DATA_CHANGE_VIOLATION is most certainly NOT an appropriate
code here --- it's talking about invalid database content states.
The RI triggers use ERRCODE_E_R_I_E_TRIGGER_PROTOCOL_VIOLATED for these
sorts of conditions, and I think that's probably best practice. See
ri_CheckTrigger() in particular.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2008-10-30 02:51:54 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1155) |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2008-10-30 02:36:44 | Re: Please make sure your patches are on the wiki page |