Mmm. My mail on this topic seems to have sent to nowhere.. At Fri, 21 Dec 2018 07:50:04 +0530, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote in <caexhw5s+mihmrgmtruxzr7b6dv2uminqrcgxdw_fvjmhi3v...@mail.gmail.com> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:37 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > On 2017-Aug-02, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > I think Peter's got the error and the detail backwards. It should be > > > more like > > > > > > ERROR: "someview" cannot have constraints > > > DETAIL: "someview" is a view. > > > > > > If we do it like that, we need one ERROR message per error reason, > > > and one DETAIL per relkind, which should be manageable. > > > > I support this idea. Here's a proof-of-concept patch that corresponds > > to one of the cases that Ashutosh was on about (specifically, the one > > that uses the RELKIND_CAN_HAVE_STORAGE macro I just added). If there > > are no objections to this approach, I'm going to complete it along these > > lines. > > > > I put the new function at the bottom of heapam.c but I think it probably > > needs a better place. > > > > BTW are there other opinions on the RELKIND_HAS_STORAGE vs. > > RELKIND_CAN_HAVE_STORAGE debate? I'm inclined to change it to the > > former. > > > > +1 I liked the idea.
+1. as I posted to another thread [1]. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181218.145600.172055615.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
