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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
