From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
Date: | 2013-01-13 17:39:01 |
Message-ID: | 12557.1358098741@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I felt that this was quite unnecessary because of the limited scope of
> the patch, and because this raises thorny issues of both semantics and
> implementation. Tom agreed with this general view - after all, this
> patch exists for the express purpose of having a well-principled way
> of obtaining the various fields across lc_messages settings. So I
> don't see that we have to do anything about making a constraint_schema
> available.
Or in other words, there are two steps here: first, create
infrastructure to expose the fields that we already provide within the
regular message text; then two, consider adding new fields. The first
part of that is a good deal less controversial than the second, so let's
go ahead and get that part committed.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-13 17:44:44 | Re: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-01-13 17:34:19 | Re: Porting to Haiku |