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

Re: proposal: additional error fields

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Peter Geoghegan" <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "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 14:16:48
Message-ID: 4FA0FB8002000025000476DD@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
 
> My guess is that all the ones defined in the SQL standard are
> "expected" errors, more or less by definition, and thus not
> interesting according to Peter G's criteria.
 
On a scan through the list, I didn't see any exceptions to that,
except for the "F0" class.  To restate what the standard reserves
for standard SQLSTATE values in the form of a regular expression, it
looks like:
 
'^[0-4A-H][0-9A-Z][0-4A-H][0-9A-Z][0-9A-Z]$'
 
Eyeballing the errcode page in the docs, it looks like there are
PostgreSQL-assigned values that start with '5', 'P', and 'X'.  That
"F0" class looks suspicious; are those really defined by standard or
did we encroach on standard naming space with PostgreSQL-specific
values?

We also have PostgreSQL-specific values in standard classes where we
use 'P' for the third character, which is fine.
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-05-02 14:23:17
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields
Previous:From: Alexander KorotkovDate: 2012-05-02 13:57:05
Subject: Re: Patch: add conversion from pg_wchar to multibyte

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