| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Date: | 2012-12-28 18:09:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_Ut8QJOit2VW9rVtNrohTdWXc4g8j_pChw3gonr+kR27g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28 December 2012 14:00, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> There are some additional concerns regarding the patch itself that I
> have (do we really want to modify ereport() in this way? How can we
> implement something which scales better than just adding more and more
> parameters?) but I think we need to figure out exactly what we're agreed
> to be doing with this patch and get buy-in from everyone first.
I don't think that the need to scale beyond what we have in my
revision really exists. Some of the ereport sites are a bit unwieldy,
but I don't see that there is much that can be done about that - you
need to specify the information somewhere, and it makes sense to do it
at that point. The field names are frequently expanded in the error
message presented to the user anyway.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-12-28 18:21:50 | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Previous Message | Charles Gomes | 2012-12-28 18:06:44 | Whats the correct way to change trigdata->tg_relation |