| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure |
| Date: | 2003-03-16 17:59:12 |
| Message-ID: | 21237.1047837552@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel
>> uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol?
> There's a possible solution: SQL99 part 3 defines numerical codes for
> each of these fields (table 12/section 5.14). The codes are between
> around 0 and 40.
Hmm. I can't see any advantage to these over assigning our own codes;
ours would have at least *some* mnemonic value, rather than being chosen
completely at random ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2003-03-16 18:05:43 | Re: ALTER USER |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-16 17:36:25 | Re: ALTER USER |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-03-16 20:41:15 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-03-16 14:06:19 | Re: [INTERFACES] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure |