From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_croak, or something like it? |
Date: | 2020-01-27 15:56:02 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYjM-6Zikp5+xLaNM_AbqsxUE7V+0HMWjk6WFWdbFwoww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:50 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So? elog() is just a specific degenerate case of ereport(). If we have
> a way to implement ereport() on frontend side then we can surely do
> elog() too.
I suppose that's true.
> What it sounds to me like you want to do is implement (some equivalent of)
> elog() but not ereport() for this environment. I'm going to resist that
> pretty strongly, because I think it will lead directly to abuse of elog()
> for user-facing errors, with a consequent degradation of the user
> experience when that code executes on backend side. I do not believe
> that there are no user-facing error cases in the JSON parser, for
> example; much less that we'll never introduce any in future.
You clearly haven't read the thread on this topic, or at least not
very carefully.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-27 16:07:53 | Re: pg_croak, or something like it? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-01-27 15:54:19 | Re: Error message inconsistency |