Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

2009/8/5 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:41:30PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> Anyway, it was a bad suggestion that we provide a way to specify a
>>> SQLSTATE to use for a constraint failure.  I do think that some field
>>> which could be used for that purpose would be good.  Preferably
>>> something which could be specified in the declaration of the
>>> constraint.
>
>> I still stand by my assertion that the constraint name is sufficient for
>> the original purpose.
>
> Yeah.  Changing the SQLSTATE for a given error seems much more likely
> to break things than to be helpful.  It does make sense to be able to
> extract the constraint name for a constraint-related error without
> having to make unsafe assumptions about the spelling of the
> human-readable error message, though.
>
> Peter pointed out upthread that the SQL standard already calls out some
> things that should be available in this way --- has anyone studied that
> yet?

yes - it's part of GET DIAGNOSTICS statement

http://savage.net.au/SQL/sql-2003-2.bnf.html#condition%20information%20item%20name

regards
Pavel Stehule
>
>                        regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>