2012/12/29 Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>: > * Pavel Stehule (pavel.steh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> it is a problem of this patch or not consistent constraints implementation ? > > Not sure, but I don't think it matters. You can blame the constraint > implementation, but that doesn't change my feelings about what we need > before we can accept a patch like this. Providing something which works > only part of the time and then doesn't work for very unclear reasons > isn't a good idea. Perhaps we need to fix the constraint implementation > and perhaps we need to fix the error information being returned, or most > likely we have to fix both, it doesn't change that we need to do > something more than just ignore this problem.
can we remove CONSTRAINT_NAME from this patch? Minimally TABLE_SCHEMA, TABLE_NAME and COLUMN_NAME works as expected. CONSTRAINT_NAME can be implemented after constraints refactoring Pavel > > Thanks, > > Stephen -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
