"Dickson S. Guedes" <listas@guedesoft.net> wrote:
> Hi Takahiro, i'm the reviewer of your patch, and the following are my
> comments about it:
Thank you for reviewing. An updated patch is attached.
> The patch was applied totalty clean to CVS HEAD and compiled in Ubuntu
> 8.04, Ubuntu 8.10 and AIX 5.3, but failed in follow tests:
> Would be good to modify the outputs to expect a new "DETAIL:" line.
I adjusted expected output of regression test in the new patch.
> I'm thinking if could be better to shows Key (my_key)=(...) instead Key
> (...)=(...) -- well, i don't know how much people uses a key with more
> 512B and how often it is to they don't know wich key it is, (just reading
> a log, for example) to we consider this important.
I modified the format logic to use StringInfo and don't cut off the message
in 512 bytes. Key names and values will be never into '...'. I changed both
both report_unique_violation() and ri_ReportViolation().
> On the other hand there is a comment by Tom [1] about "to refactor this so
> it's not btree-specific, but could be used by other index AMs"
> [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-04/msg00234.php
I exported the reporting function to itup.h.
[include/access/itup.h]
extern void report_unique_violation(Relation rel, IndexTuple itup);
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center