| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Date: | 2012-12-30 02:01:04 |
| Message-ID: | 20121230020104.GH16126@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter,
* Peter Geoghegan (peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> In order for the problem you describe to happen, the user would have
> to ignore the warning in the documentation about constraint_name's
> ability to uniquely identify something, and then have two constraints
> in play at the same time with the same name but substantively
> different. That seems incredibly unlikely.
I really don't think what I sketched out or something similar would
happen. I do think it's incredibly frustrating as a user who is trying
to develop an application which behaves correctly to be given only half
the information.
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-12-30 02:37:46 | Re: pg_stat_statements: calls under-estimation propagation |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-12-29 23:29:52 | Re: enhanced error fields |