Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: enhanced error fields

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 (view raw or flat)
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


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2013-01-13 17:44:44
Subject: Re: Re: logical changeset generation v3 - comparison to Postgres-R change set format
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2013-01-13 17:34:19
Subject: Re: Porting to Haiku

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group