Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: proposal: additional error fields

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 00:05:07
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.  ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_CONNECTIONS isn't
what I'd call an oh-shit condition even though it's in class 53, but
this "could not create archive status file \"%s\"" is definitely an
oh-shit regardless of what errcode_for_file_access() returns.

Also, the fact is that most people do not log SQLSTATEs.  And even if
they did, they're not going to know to grep for 53|58|maybe F0|XX.
What we need is an easy way for people to pick out any log entries
that represent conditions that should never occur as a result of any
legitimate user activity.  Like, with grep.  And, without needing to
have a PhD in Postgresology.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-05-02 00:13:05
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-05-01 23:22:15
Subject: Re: proposal: additional error fields

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group