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 18:06:57 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRDJ7_z-R36D4JjmNLu86VOnZhyF9J-ZGPYwhaAMepVdJQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/1/5 Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> 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.
if I understand well Robert Haas is for including these fields - so
score is still 2:2 - but this is not a match :)
I have no more new arguments for these fields - yes, there are no change
Pavel
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2013-01-05 18:21:49 | Re: bad examples in pg_dump README |
Previous Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2013-01-05 17:59:30 | Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" |