Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

2009/8/5 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:37PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> >
>> > > If that's what we're trying to solve, I don't think that adding
>> > > some kind of proprietary shorthand coding is a good idea.  If
>> > > we're do to this at all, it should be a connection-based GUC
>> > > option, and use some standard formal like XML fragments.
>> >
>> > +1 to this idea in general,
>
> I think the train left the station on this issue quite a while ago.  The
> error messages have been like they are now for six releases.  I don't
> have any use for changing the format.
>
> Clients can produce XML or JSON or whatever format you like already
> anyway.  The protocol is perfectly defined already.

+1

really, I don't like to parse "any" text again to get this info.

Pavel

>
> --
> Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>