From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: the case for machine-readable error fields |
Date: | 2009-08-04 21:18:30 |
Message-ID: | 200908050018.31744.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 23:19:24 Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, you completely dodged the question of defining what the fields
> really mean, which would be 100% essential to doing anything automatic
> with the results. If "errtable" sometimes means a table that doesn't
> exist, and sometimes means a table that exists but doesn't contain an
> expected column, or sometimes a table that exists but doesn't contain
> an expected value, or sometimes a table that exists and contains a
> value that shouldn't be there, etc etc, then actually doing anything
> interesting with the information is going to be a matter of guess and
> hope rather than something that's reliably automatable.
The SQL standard contains an analogous facility that defines exactly that.
Look for <get diagnostics statement>. It specifies what the "table name" etc.
is in specific error situations.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-04 21:23:54 | Re: the case for machine-readable error fields |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-08-04 20:59:17 | head contrib is broken (crypto) |