* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghega...@gmail.com> writes: > > I can see the case for fixing this, but I don't feel that it's > > particularly important that constraints be uniquely identifiable from > > the proposed new errdata fields. > > I think that we'll soon be buried in gripes if they're not. Pretty much > the whole point of this patch is to allow applications to get rid of > ad-hoc, it-usually-works coding techniques. I'd argue that not checking > the entire constraint identity is about as fragile as trying to "sed" > the constraint name out of a potentially-localized error message. > In both cases, it often works fine, until the application's context > changes.
Perhaps I wasn't clear previously, but this is precisely what I had been
argueing for upthread..
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
