"Dickson S. Guedes" <lis...@guedesoft.net> wrote: > Hi Takahiro, i'm the reviewer of your patch, and the following are my > comments about it:
Thank you for reviewing. An updated patch is attached. > The patch was applied totalty clean to CVS HEAD and compiled in Ubuntu > 8.04, Ubuntu 8.10 and AIX 5.3, but failed in follow tests: > Would be good to modify the outputs to expect a new "DETAIL:" line. I adjusted expected output of regression test in the new patch. > I'm thinking if could be better to shows Key (my_key)=(...) instead Key > (...)=(...) -- well, i don't know how much people uses a key with more > 512B and how often it is to they don't know wich key it is, (just reading > a log, for example) to we consider this important. I modified the format logic to use StringInfo and don't cut off the message in 512 bytes. Key names and values will be never into '...'. I changed both both report_unique_violation() and ri_ReportViolation(). > On the other hand there is a comment by Tom [1] about "to refactor this so > it's not btree-specific, but could be used by other index AMs" > [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-04/msg00234.php I exported the reporting function to itup.h. [include/access/itup.h] extern void report_unique_violation(Relation rel, IndexTuple itup); Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center
report_dupkey-20090721.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
