Horton

Re: enhanced error fields

Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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: 2013-01-28T20:04:02Z
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.

2013/1/28 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> 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.

ok

Pavel

>
>                         regards, tom lane