As a side question, if there are multiple cross-type conversions in one
constraint on different column pairs, what do we think the message should
be? One message with multiple column mentions in detail or multiple
notices? (I haven't looked at the patch to see if one or the other is
On Mar 5, 2004, at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Agreed. The current text is:
NOTICE: costly cross-type foreign key because of component 1
Seems we should say something like:
NOTICE: foreign key constraint 'constrname' must use a costly
cross-type conversion
It seems to me that in some
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The reason I think we have to mention the constraint name is that you
could have a multi-column primary/foreign key, so instead of mentioning
each column, we just mention the constraint name, which should be easy
to identify.
However, the complaint will
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'd suggest something along the lines of
NOTICE: foreign key constraint constrname will require a cross-type conversion
DETAIL: key columns fkcol and pkcol are of different types integer and double
precision
I suggested the
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I'd suggest something along the lines of
NOTICE: foreign key constraint constrname will require a cross-type conversion
DETAIL: key columns fkcol and pkcol are of different types integer and
Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why should we make them guess which column is the problem, when we know
it perfectly well?
As a side question, if there are multiple cross-type conversions in one
constraint on different column pairs, what do we think the message should
be? One message
Fabien COELHO wrote:
Dear patchers,
Here is my second and last try of the day.
This patch adds a notice at constraint creation time if the referential
integrity check is to be costly, that is it cannot use the index due to
some incompatibility.
The patch was generated with the
