| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: additional error fields |
| Date: | 2012-05-02 00:13:05 |
| Message-ID: | 24403.1335917585@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I continue to maintain that the SQLSTATE is a much better basis for
>> solving this problem. Its categories are already pretty close to
>> what Peter needs: basically, IIUC, he wants to know about classes
>> 53, 58, maybe F0, and XX.
> This is really too mushy, IMHO.
I don't deny that we probably need to reclassify a few error cases, and
fix some elogs that should be ereports, before this approach would be
really workable. My point is that it's *close*, whereas "let's invent
some new error severities" is not close to reality and will break all
sorts of stuff.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Johnston | 2012-05-02 00:32:58 | Re: proposal: additional error fields |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-02 00:05:07 | Re: proposal: additional error fields |