Re: Error codes revisited

Christoph Haller wrote:
>>Given the repeatedly-asked-for functionalities (like error codes)
>>for which the stopper has been the long-threatened protocol revision,
>>I'd think it might be boring, but would hardly be thankless. Heck, I'd
>
>
>>expect a few whoops of joy around the lists.
>>
>
> Yes. Error codes would be great.

Particularly if they arrive in conjunction with Bruce's "Nested
Transaction" implementation. I image many people would like to
create a subtransaction, which, if it fails due to a unique key
violation, could recover and perform an update.

I'd personally like some way of mapping RI-related messages into
application-specific, perhaps localized, messages. Error codes
will provide a nice starting point. Will the action and object
upon which the action is being attempted also be available?

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com