Tom Lane wrote:
> While there's not anything wrong with this proposed patch in itself,
> I have to admit that I don't see the point.
The points are:
1. It is just unpleasant to leave the overflow.
2. It is not easy for users to understand what they should do when they
encounter the error message. At least users can't understand that it is because
of the upper limit:
ERROR: unexpected constraint record found for rel test_a
I haven't found such a case in real practice. But I think the limit will be a
little closer than that is now, because constraint exclusion is expanded for
UPDATE/DELETE in 8.2 and the opportunity of using check constraint will increase
. So I investigated the upper limit and found it.
By the way, as you said, it would impose an extra burden on message translators
and I can understand your opinion. But will it lead directly to the reason that
we don't fix it?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2006-11-13 05:20:15|
|Subject: Re: adminpack and pg_catalog|
|Previous:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2006-11-12 23:31:52|
|Subject: Re: Frequent Update Project: Design Overview ofHOTUpdates|
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: tomas||Date: 2006-11-13 05:42:08|
|Subject: Re: BUG #2755: strange select behavior|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2006-11-12 20:34:30|
|Subject: Re: 8.2beta1 (w32): server process crash (tsvector) |
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2006-11-13 11:16:25|
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2006-11-12 20:42:41|
|Subject: Update to mingw FAQ|