Hello 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.
so we have to solve this issue first. Please, can you do resume, what is and where is current constraint implementation raise strange/unexpected messages? one question when we will fix constraints, maybe we can use some infrastructure for enhanced error fields. What about partial commit now - just necessary infrastructure without modification of other code - I am thinking so there is agreement on new fields: column_name, table_name, schema_name, constraint_name and constraint_schema? Regards 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
