| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [INTERFACES] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure |
| Date: | 2003-03-16 14:06:19 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0303160302550.3020-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Tom Lane writes:
> Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel
> uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol?
> I'm still leaning that way on the grounds of compactness and programming
> simplicity, but I can see where someone might want to argue it won't do
> in the long run.
There's a possible solution: SQL99 part 3 defines numerical codes for
each of these fields (table 12/section 5.14). The codes are between
around 0 and 40. (Don't be confused by the negative code numbers in the
table; those are only for use within ODBC.)
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-03-16 14:08:31 | Re: Error message style guide |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-03-16 13:37:26 | Re: ALTER USER |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-16 17:59:12 | Re: [INTERFACES] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure |
| Previous Message | Agrawal, Manish | 2003-03-15 16:45:38 | Visual query designer |