Horton

Re: enhanced error fields

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>, "anarazel@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Date: 2013-01-28T20:01:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Create a "sort support" interface API for faster sorting.

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
> 2013/1/28 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>> ...  The current patch provides sufficient
>> information to uniquely identify a table constraint, but not so much
>> domain constraints.  Should we fix that?  I think it'd be legitimate
>> to re-use SCHEMA_NAME for domain schema, but we'd need a new nonstandard
>> field DOMAIN_NAME (or maybe better DATATYPE_NAME) if we want to fix it.
>> Do we want to add that now?

> should be for me.

> one question - what do you thing about marking proprietary field with
> some prefix - like PG_DOMAIN_NAME ?

Don't particularly see the point of that.  It seems quite unlikely that
the ISO committee would invent a field with the same name and a
conflicting definition.  Anyway, these names aren't going to be exposed
in any non "proprietary" interfaces AFAICS.  Surely we don't, for
instance, need to call the postgres_ext.h macro PG_DIAG_PG_DOMAIN_NAME.

			regards, tom lane