> Tom Lane Wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghega...@gmail.com> writes: > > On 29 January 2013 00:25, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I can see the case for fixing this, but I don't feel that it's > > particularly important that constraints be uniquely identifiable from > > the proposed new errdata fields. > > I think that we'll soon be buried in gripes if they're not. Pretty much the > whole point of this patch is to allow applications to get rid of ad-hoc, it- > usually-works coding techniques. I'd argue that not checking the entire > constraint identity is about as fragile as trying to "sed" > the constraint name out of a potentially-localized error message. > In both cases, it often works fine, until the application's context changes.
+1 here too. I'm feel I'm quite close to the front of the queue of application developers waiting on enhances error fields. I'd personally rather I noticed my application was broken during an testing an upgrade to 9.3 than somewhere down the line. I can't imagine renaming a constraint to upgrade to 9.3 is going to be a showstopper for anyone. Perhaps the release notes can contain a query to allow users to check this pre-upgrade. Regards David Rowley > > 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
