From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | "Peter Geoghegan" <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: proposal: additional error fields |
Date: | 2012-05-02 22:36:19 |
Message-ID: | 3177.1335998179@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>>> That "F0" class looks suspicious; are those really defined by
>>> standard or did we encroach on standard naming space with
>>> PostgreSQL-specific values?
>> I think we screwed up on that :-(. So we ought to renumber those
>> codes anyway. Perhaps use "PF" instead of "F0"?
> Sounds good to me.
I thought for a few minutes about whether we ought to try to sneak
such a change into 9.2. But given that we're talking about probably
doing a number of other SQLSTATE reassignments in the future, it
seems likely better to wait and absorb all that pain in a single
release cycle. It seems moderately unlikely that any client-side
code is dependent on these specific assignments, but still I'd rather
not see a dribble of "we changed some SQLSTATEs" compatibility flags
across several successive releases.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-02 23:18:15 | Re: Unnecessary WAL archiving after failover |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-02 22:23:44 | Re: online debloatification (was: extending relations more efficiently) |