| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Date: | 2013-01-05 17:48:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_UgU6CD_8zC_p1w-0TpKibHk=37AfrxD6HDiJrNi_k3Rg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5 January 2013 16:56, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It seems that we're in agreement, then. I'll prepare a version of the
>> patch very similar to the one I previously posted, but with some
>> caveats about how reliably the values can be used. I think that that
>> should be fine.
>
> is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields?
Well, Tom and I are both opposed to including those fields. Peter E
seemed to support it in some way, but didn't respond to Tom's
criticisms (which were just a restatement of my own). So, it seems to
me that we're not going to do that, assuming nothing changes.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2013-01-05 17:59:30 | Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-01-05 17:21:54 | Re: git author vs committer |