Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: the case for machine-readable error fields
Date: 2009-08-05 19:23:17
Message-ID: 20090805192317.GI6518@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> Peter pointed out upthread that the SQL standard already calls out some
> things that should be available in this way --- has anyone studied that
> yet?

Yeah, I gave it a look. It looks useful as a guide, though obviously
not directly implementable because it relies on GET DIAGNOSTICS to have
somewhere to store the diagnostics information into (a host variable,
etc). They do define that there is a TABLE_NAME, etc. Not much else to
report at the moment.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-05 19:25:43 Re: log shipping and nextval sequences
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-08-05 19:21:47 Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema