| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> | 
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: verbose mode for pg_input_error_message? | 
| Date: | 2023-01-02 15:44:42 | 
| Message-ID: | 1430967.1672674282@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I've been wondering if it might be a good idea to have a third parameter
> for pg_input_error_message() which would default to false, but which if
> true would cause it to emit the detail and hint fields, if any, as well
> as the message field from the error_data.
I don't think that just concatenating those strings would make for a
pleasant API.  More sensible, perhaps, to have a separate function
that returns a record.  Or we could redefine the existing function
that way, but I suspect that "just the primary error" will be a
principal use-case.
Being able to get the SQLSTATE is likely to be interesting too.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-01-02 15:57:27 | Re: CAST(... ON DEFAULT) - WIP build on top of Error-Safe User Functions | 
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2023-01-02 15:42:40 | Re: Allow placeholders in ALTER ROLE w/o superuser |