* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com> writes:
> > 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.
Perhaps I wasn't clear previously, but this is precisely what I had been
argueing for upthread..
Thanks,
Stephen
