Re: proposal: additional error fields

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Peter Geoghegan" <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields
Date: 2012-05-02 22:36:19
Message-ID: 3177.1335998179@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-05-02 23:18:15 Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover
Previous Message Robert Haas 2012-05-02 22:23:44 Re: online debloatification (was: extending relations more efficiently)