Re: Cleaning up ERRCODE usage in our XML code

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> On 23 Sep 2024, at 19:17, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, I looked at that but wasn't sure what to do with it. We should
>> have validated the decl header when the XML value was created, so if
>> we get here then either the value got corrupted on-disk or in-transit,
>> or something forgot to do that validation, or libxml has changed its
>> mind since then about what's a valid decl. At least some of those
>> cases are probably legitimately called INTERNAL_ERROR. I thought for
>> awhile about ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED, but I'm not convinced that's a
>> better fit.

> I agree that it might not be an obvious better fit, but also not an obvious
> worse fit. It will make it easier to filter on during fleet analysis so I
> would be inclined to change it, but the main value of the patch are other hunks
> so feel free to ignore.

Fair enough. Pushed with ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED used there.
Thanks again for reviewing.

regards, tom lane