From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
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 19:29:52 |
Message-ID: | 27890.1249500592@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
I'm not proposing that we implement GET DIAGNOSTICS as a statement.
I was just thinking that the list of values it's supposed to make
available might do as a guide to what extra error fields we need to
provide where.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-08-05 19:34:45 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Use DocBook XSL stylesheets for man page building This switches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-05 19:25:43 | Re: log shipping and nextval sequences |