| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(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 16:56:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAwkvgukxnULfJvE+jATYWLUwWU=1CReZnVa9jjL4FT4g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/1/4 Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> On 4 January 2013 18:07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Exactly. To my mind, the *entire* point of this patch is to remove the
>> need for people to try to dig information out of potentially-localized
>> message strings. It's not clear to me that we have to strain to provide
>> information that isn't in the currently-reported messages --- we are
>> only trying to make it easier for client-side code to extract the
>> information it's likely to need.
>
> 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?
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2013-01-05 16:58:19 | Re: Reporting hba lines |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-01-05 16:55:03 | Re: enhanced error fields |