Re: enhanced error fields

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> 2013/1/28 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> ...  The current patch provides sufficient
>> information to uniquely identify a table constraint, but not so much
>> domain constraints.  Should we fix that?  I think it'd be legitimate
>> to re-use SCHEMA_NAME for domain schema, but we'd need a new nonstandard
>> field DOMAIN_NAME (or maybe better DATATYPE_NAME) if we want to fix it.
>> Do we want to add that now?

> should be for me.

> one question - what do you thing about marking proprietary field with
> some prefix - like PG_DOMAIN_NAME ?

Don't particularly see the point of that.  It seems quite unlikely that
the ISO committee would invent a field with the same name and a
conflicting definition.  Anyway, these names aren't going to be exposed
in any non "proprietary" interfaces AFAICS.  Surely we don't, for
instance, need to call the postgres_ext.h macro PG_DIAG_PG_DOMAIN_NAME.
        regards, tom lane