Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: the case for machine-readable error fields
Date: 2009-08-04 22:28:04
Message-ID: 23066.1249424884@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> If that's what we're trying to solve, I don't think that adding some
> kind of proprietary shorthand coding is a good idea. If we're do to
> this at all, it should be a connection-based GUC option, and use some
> standard formal like XML fragments.

Huh? What he was talking about is providing additional error fields,
which would presumably be made available via PQresultErrorField in
libpq, or its kin in other interfaces, and would be totally invisible to
any client that didn't ask for them. I can't imagine any value-add
from introducing XML into the problem.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-08-04 22:29:24 Re: head contrib is broken (crypto)
Previous Message Bernd Helmle 2009-08-04 22:24:11 Re: mixed, named notation support