| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Cramer <dave(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ambiguous sql states |
| Date: | 2003-08-24 21:24:50 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0308242321590.6464-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> Dave's correct, that's what we're currently using. I'm happy to change
> it if someone can suggest an appropriate SQLSTATE (even a category...)
> to use instead.
I had a private chat with Dave about this. It was my view that a missing
file that is read by a backend COPY is indistinguishable from, say, a
missing table or trigger, as far as recovery options by the client
application are concerned.
> I would however like to know why ecpg cares.
It doesn't. This is related to an Informix porting project, which
apparently has a separate error code for its LOAD command. Why exactly
that would affect our COPY isn't totally clear to me.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-24 21:27:28 | Re: ambiguous sql states |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2003-08-24 21:14:37 | Re: ambiguous sql states |