Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: enhanced error fields

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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


> --
> Peter Geoghegan
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh KupershmidtDate: 2013-01-05 18:21:49
Subject: Re: bad examples in pg_dump README
Previous:From: Fabrízio de Royes MelloDate: 2013-01-05 17:59:30
Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group