Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan
><pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Ascertaining the identity of the object in question perfectly
>> unambiguously, so that you can safely do something like lookup a
>> comment on the object, seems like something way beyond what I'd
>> envisioned for this feature. Why should the comment be useful in an
>> error handler anyway? At best, that seems like a nice-to-have extra
>to
>> me. The vast majority are not even going to think about the ambiguity
>> that may exist. They'll just write:
>>
>> if (constraint_name == "upc")
>> MessageBox("That is not a valid barcode.");
>
>The people who are content to do that don't need this patch at all.
>They can just apply a regexp to the message that comes back from the
>server and then set constraint_name based on what pops out of the
>regex. And then do just what you did there.
Easier said than done if you're dealing with pg installations with different
lc_messages...
Andres
---
Please excuse the brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
