Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E249F40.5070701@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: patch for 9.2: enhanced errors
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom, > Either one. They both have the potential to reference more than one > column, so if the committee had meant errors to try to identify the > referenced columns, they'd have put something other than COLUMN_NAME > into the standard. They didn't. I'm less concerned about the standard here and more concerned about what helps our users. Having column names for an FK error is *extremely* useful for troubleshooting, particularly if the database has been upgraded from the 7.4 days and has non-useful FK names like "$3". I agree that column names for CHECK constraints is a bit of a tar baby, since check constraints can be on complex permutations of columns. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: