On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 09:30:02AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Anyway, the upshot is -- I think that it would be beneficial to allow, > to the extent we can confirm it's not a violation of any applicable > standard, a user-defined SQLSTATE to be associated with a constraint. > I also think that it would be valuable to provide a mechanism for > PostgreSQL-specific application code to be able to pick off one or two > table names related to a "standard" constraint violation. I'm less > convinced at the column or data value level, but I can see where it > might be useful.
Not sure if overloading SQLSTATE is the right way of doing this is it? It already has things like 23514 for a check violation and any other client code relying in this would break if it started getting different things back. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ p.s. I think you were agreeing with everything else I was saying, even if I didn't explain myself well enough for you to understand me! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
