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

Re: enhanced error fields

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: enhanced error fields
Date: 2013-01-05 17:48:08
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 5 January 2013 16:56, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It seems that we're in agreement, then. I'll prepare a version of the
>> patch very similar to the one I previously posted, but with some
>> caveats about how reliably the values can be used. I think that that
>> should be fine.
> is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields?

Well, Tom and I are both opposed to including those fields. Peter E
seemed to support it in some way, but didn't respond to Tom's
criticisms (which were just a restatement of my own). So, it seems to
me that we're not going to do that, assuming nothing changes.

Peter Geoghegan
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fabrízio de Royes MelloDate: 2013-01-05 17:59:30
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2013-01-05 17:21:54
Subject: Re: git author vs committer

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group