Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Why don't you just choose better names for your constraints?
A word versus a sentence. It's a big difference that greatly improves the
user experience.
> I'd argue that the proposed change might actually be a net loss for
usability, if it entirely obscures the fact that what happened was a
check-constraint violation.
I understand, I'm looking at it from the point of view of the end user who
is using an application. This application will not need to handle the
message if the database generates a more 'user-friendly' message.
> It's also not very clear why we'd stop with check constraints, if the
desire is to get rid of database-produced error messages in favor of
something that somebody likes better.
The idea is just to be able to define a different message. if I have to use
a trigger to set a different message, then I have to write the same rule
twice, in CHECK and TRIGGER, which is redundant.
Best regards,
Miguel Ferreira
