Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Patch applied. Thanks.
>
> Did you pay no attention to the subsequent discussion?
I thought that was related to a different patch but now I see it was the
same.
> While I don't object to renaming the routines internally, I do have
> strong doubts about changing the externally-visible error messages.
> I'd suggest undoing the particular changes that pass routine names
> to ExecConstraints, so that the error messages stay the same. We
> can clean it up at some time *after* we offer error codes that clients
> can test.
Well, with no error codes on the horizon, and schemas appearing to break
lots of stuff, I don't see the need to keep error messages consistent.
Heck, the error messages says:
elog(WARNING, "ExecReplace: replace can't run without transaction");
and we haven't had replace since 1994 or so. I think the cleanup is
needed.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
|
