Re: proposal: additional 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>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields
Date: 2012-05-01 20:14:08
Message-ID: 19904.1335903248@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:
> Maybe no one is convinced by any of this, but the fact is that the
> SQLSTATE argument falls down when one considers that we aren't using
> it in many cases of errors that clearly are severe.

The reason that argument isn't convincing is that we *are* using a
SQLSTATE for every such message; it's just defaulted to XX000. AFAICT,
it would be reasonable to treat all XX000 as alarm conditions until
proven different. If a given message is, in fact, not supposed to be
"can't happen", then it shouldn't be going through elog(). We'd
probably be needing to fix some places that were lazily coded as elogs,
but under your proposal we would also have to touch every such place
... and thousands more besides.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2012-05-01 20:16:01 Re: JSON in 9.2 - Could we have just one to_json() function instead of two separate versions ?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2012-05-01 20:14:02 Re: proposal: additional error fields