Re: enhanced error fields

2013/1/28 Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On 28 January 2013 21:33, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> Another point, in case someone wants to revisit this in the future, is
>> that these fields were applied in a way that is contrary to the SQL
>> standard, I think.
>>
>> The presented patch interpreted ROUTINE_NAME as: the error happened
>> while executing this function. But according to the standard, the field
>> is only set when the error was directly related to the function itself,
>> for example when calling an INSERT statement in a non-volatile function.
>
> Right. It seems to me that ROUTINE_NAME is vastly less compelling than
> the fields that are likely to be present in the committed patch. GET
> DIAGNOSTICS, as implemented by DB2, allows clients /to poll/ for a
> large number of fields. I'm not really interested in that myelf, but
> if we were to add something in the same spirit, I think that extending
> errdata to support this would not be a sensible approach.
>
> Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I can't imagine that it would be terribly
> useful to anyone (including Pavel) to have a GET DIAGNOSTICS style
> ROUTINE_NAME.

I hoped so I can use it inside exception handler

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
> Regards,
> Peter Geoghegan