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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that
Date
Msg-id CAEYLb_VnF9n=dKKmZ-eMixr_1kAa1pDHpxYQ9bm_wox8M+GBTQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that
List pgsql-hackers
On 29 January 2013 00:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Of course this wouldn't be material for back-patching, but it seems to
> me there's still time to fix this for 9.3, and we should do so if we
> want to claim that the enhanced-errors patch uniquely identifies
> constraints.

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.

-- 
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Hm, table constraints aren't so unique as all that
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: logical changeset generation v4