"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>>> That "F0" class looks suspicious; are those really defined by
>>> standard or did we encroach on standard naming space with
>>> PostgreSQL-specific values?
>> I think we screwed up on that :-(. So we ought to renumber those
>> codes anyway. Perhaps use "PF" instead of "F0"?
> Sounds good to me.
I thought for a few minutes about whether we ought to try to sneak
such a change into 9.2. But given that we're talking about probably
doing a number of other SQLSTATE reassignments in the future, it
seems likely better to wait and absorb all that pain in a single
release cycle. It seems moderately unlikely that any client-side
code is dependent on these specific assignments, but still I'd rather
not see a dribble of "we changed some SQLSTATEs" compatibility flags
across several successive releases.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-05-02 23:18:15|
|Subject: Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-05-02 22:23:44|
|Subject: Re: online debloatification (was: extending relations more efficiently)|