On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 01:36:59PM +0900, Josh Berkus wrote: > 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.
What, if anything, does the standard have to say about violations of ASSERTIONs? I know these aren't ASSERTIONs, but they much more closely resemble them than they do UNIQUE constraints. For example, if the operator is <> instead of =, a violation is actually the opposite of a UNIQUE violation. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
