Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

2009/8/5 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> 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?
>
>> Yeah, I gave it a look.  It looks useful as a guide, though obviously
>> not directly implementable because it relies on GET DIAGNOSTICS to have
>> somewhere to store the diagnostics information into (a host variable,
>> etc).  They do define that there is a TABLE_NAME, etc.  Not much else to
>> report at the moment.
>
> I'm not proposing that we implement GET DIAGNOSTICS as a statement.
> I was just thinking that the list of values it's supposed to make
> available might do as a guide to what extra error fields we need to
> provide where.
>

+1

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
>