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

Re: proposal: additional error fields

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields
Date: 2012-05-02 00:13:05
Message-ID: 24403.1335917585@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I continue to maintain that the SQLSTATE is a much better basis for
>> solving this problem. Its categories are already pretty close to
>> what Peter needs: basically, IIUC, he wants to know about classes
>> 53, 58, maybe F0, and XX.

> This is really too mushy, IMHO.

I don't deny that we probably need to reclassify a few error cases, and
fix some elogs that should be ereports, before this approach would be
really workable.  My point is that it's *close*, whereas "let's invent
some new error severities" is not close to reality and will break all
sorts of stuff.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David JohnstonDate: 2012-05-02 00:32:58
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-05-02 00:05:07
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields

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