| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: operator exclusion constraints |
| Date: | 2009-11-20 04:36:59 |
| Message-ID: | 4B061CEB.3020007@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
RObert,
> I guess I'm going to have to vote -1 on this proposal. I code see
> inventing a pgsql-specific SQLSTATE value for exclusion constraints,
> since they will be a pgsql-specific extension, but reusing the unique
> key violation value seems misleading. I admit it may help in a
> limited number of cases, but IMHO it's not worth the confusion.
I'd rather have a new one than just using "contstraint violation" which
is terribly non-specific, and generally makes the application developer
think that a value is too large.
--Josh BErkus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2009-11-20 05:30:54 | Re: Why do OLD and NEW have special internal names? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-11-20 03:58:38 | Re: operator exclusion constraints |