Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message:
>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> In the context of yesterday's discussions, I wonder whether a
>>> filter by SQLSTATE would be appropriate.
>>
>> I'm worried it's not really granular enough.
>
> Yeah.
Just to be sure we're not inventing a problem here, can someone
produce an example of a situation where it would not be granular
enough (assuming we correct bad SQLSTATE choices where they exist)?
I count 232 distinct SQLSTATE values (139 standard values and 93
PostgreSQL-specific values), and we can create more if we
want them; although I would recommend against doing that to get
finer resolution on a standard SQLSTATE value. A standard value
which is too coarse would be the strongest argument for adding some
other mechanism, IMO. If we do, I would be inclined toward
something to identify distinct conditions within a SQLSTATE, rather
than some overarching independent mechanism.
-Kevin