2013/1/4 Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On 4 January 2013 18:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Exactly. To my mind, the *entire* point of this patch is to remove the
>> need for people to try to dig information out of potentially-localized
>> message strings. It's not clear to me that we have to strain to provide
>> information that isn't in the currently-reported messages --- we are
>> only trying to make it easier for client-side code to extract the
>> information it's likely to need.
> 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?
> Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2013-01-05 16:58:19|
|Subject: Re: Reporting hba lines|
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2013-01-05 16:55:03|
|Subject: Re: enhanced error fields|