| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors |
| Date: | 2011-07-18 21:01:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4E249F40.5070701@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
> Either one. They both have the potential to reference more than one
> column, so if the committee had meant errors to try to identify the
> referenced columns, they'd have put something other than COLUMN_NAME
> into the standard. They didn't.
I'm less concerned about the standard here and more concerned about what
helps our users. Having column names for an FK error is *extremely*
useful for troubleshooting, particularly if the database has been
upgraded from the 7.4 days and has non-useful FK names like "$3".
I agree that column names for CHECK constraints is a bit of a tar baby,
since check constraints can be on complex permutations of columns.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-07-18 21:04:07 | Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime |
| Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2011-07-18 20:48:13 | Re: [v9.1] sepgsql - userspace access vector cache |