2009/8/5 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Sam Mason <s...@samason.me.uk> writes: >> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:41:30PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: >>> Anyway, it was a bad suggestion that we provide a way to specify a >>> SQLSTATE to use for a constraint failure. I do think that some field >>> which could be used for that purpose would be good. Preferably >>> something which could be specified in the declaration of the >>> constraint. > >> I still stand by my assertion that the constraint name is sufficient for >> the original purpose. > > Yeah. Changing the SQLSTATE for a given error seems much more likely > to break things than to be helpful. It does make sense to be able to > extract the constraint name for a constraint-related error without > having to make unsafe assumptions about the spelling of the > human-readable error message, though. > > Peter pointed out upthread that the SQL standard already calls out some > things that should be available in this way --- has anyone studied that > yet?
yes - it's part of GET DIAGNOSTICS statement http://savage.net.au/SQL/sql-2003-2.bnf.html#condition%20information%20item%20name regards Pavel Stehule > > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers