Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoY=ZP9TSLzpQcSRf2NzkVovdS0SjCV1EOz0aD6sY83_tQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Doc patch making firm recommendation for setting the value of commit_delay