Thank you Chris, Amit. On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 1:46 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:55 AM Chris Bandy <bandy.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry for these troubles. Attached are patches created using `git > > format-patch -n -v6` on master at 487e9861d0. > > > > No problem. I have extracted your code changes as a separate patch > (see attached) as I am not sure we want to add tests for these cases. > This doesn't apply in back-branches, but I think that is small work > and we can do that if required. The real question is do we want to > back-patch this? Basically, this improves the errors in certain cases > by providing additional information that otherwise the user might need > to extract from error messages. So, there doesn't seem to be pressing > need to back-patch this but OTOH, we have mentioned in docs that we > support to display this information for all SQLSTATE class 23 > (integrity constraint violation) errors which is not true as we forgot > to adhere to that in some parts of code. > > What do you think? Anybody else has an opinion on whether to > back-patch this or not?
As nobody except Chris complained about this so far, maybe no? -- Thank you, Amit
