Thank you Chris, Amit.
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 1:46 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:55 AM Chris Bandy <bandy.chris@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sorry for these troubles. Attached are patches created using `git
> > format-patch -n -v6` on master at 487e9861d0.
> >
>
> No problem. I have extracted your code changes as a separate patch
> (see attached) as I am not sure we want to add tests for these cases.
> This doesn't apply in back-branches, but I think that is small work
> and we can do that if required. The real question is do we want to
> back-patch this? Basically, this improves the errors in certain cases
> by providing additional information that otherwise the user might need
> to extract from error messages. So, there doesn't seem to be pressing
> need to back-patch this but OTOH, we have mentioned in docs that we
> support to display this information for all SQLSTATE class 23
> (integrity constraint violation) errors which is not true as we forgot
> to adhere to that in some parts of code.
>
> What do you think? Anybody else has an opinion on whether to
> back-patch this or not?
As nobody except Chris complained about this so far, maybe no?
--
Thank you,
Amit
