On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:34 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Fair enough, unless I see any other opinions, I will push this on Monday.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
