On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 3:34 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? >
Fair enough, unless I see any other opinions, I will push this on Monday. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
