Hello > > Personally, on the face of it I'd expect the "inconsistency" to simply > reflect the fact that the error related to the referencing table or > referenced table. Pavel's original patch followed the same convention > (though it also had a constraint_table field). I'm having a hard time > figuring out the standards intent here, and I'm not sure that we > should even care, because that applies on to GET DIAGNOSTICS, which > isn't really the same thing as what we have here. I defer to you, > though - it's not as if I feel too strongly about it. >
These fields will be reused in GET DIAGNOSTICS statement in PL/pgSQL. It is was primary goal. Regards Pavel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
