| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Karl O(dot) Pinc" <kop(at)meme(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gilles Darold <gilles(dot)darold(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |
| Date: | 2017-01-18 02:08:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqREgjED5R9m6j9T8vwDyVJq2Z3PNrgzGYv4j4G=xXS4Tw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Karl O. Pinc <kop(at)meme(dot)com> wrote:
> Maybe. It's not user-supplied data that's corrupted but it is
> PG generated data which is generated for and supplied to the user.
> I just looked at all uses of XX001 and it is true that they all
> involve corruption of user-supplied data.
>
> If you don't want to use XX001 use XX000. It does not seem worth
> making a new error code for just this one case.
Our ideas rather map here, ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR would be adapted for
this situation. Do any of you want to give it a shot or should I?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Karl O. Pinc | 2017-01-18 02:36:38 | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-01-18 02:06:14 | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |