Re: enhanced error fields

2012/12/29 Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>:
> * Pavel Stehule (pavel.stehule@gmail.com) wrote:
>> it is a problem of this patch or not consistent constraints implementation ?
>
> Not sure, but I don't think it matters.  You can blame the constraint
> implementation, but that doesn't change my feelings about what we need
> before we can accept a patch like this.  Providing something which works
> only part of the time and then doesn't work for very unclear reasons
> isn't a good idea.  Perhaps we need to fix the constraint implementation
> and perhaps we need to fix the error information being returned, or most
> likely we have to fix both, it doesn't change that we need to do
> something more than just ignore this problem.

can we remove CONSTRAINT_NAME from this patch? Minimally TABLE_SCHEMA,
TABLE_NAME and COLUMN_NAME works as expected.

CONSTRAINT_NAME can be implemented after constraints refactoring

Pavel

>
>         Thanks,
>
>                 Stephen