From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Error code mixup? |
Date: | 2003-07-28 14:49:13 |
Message-ID: | 9423.1059403753@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> My copy of SQL99 assigns
> most specific type mismatch 2200G
> null value, no indicator parameter 22002
> but elog.h has it set up the other way around. Can someone clear this up
> for me?
Hoo, that's interesting. I believe that I actually built the original
version of errcodes.h by editing the list of codes in the Ada-binding
part of the spec (part 2 13.4 rule 2e), which includes, in my draft copy,
DATA_EXCEPTION_NULL_VALUE_NO_INDICATOR_PARAMETER:
constant SQLSTATE_TYPE :="2200G";
DATA_EXCEPTION_MOST_SPECIFIC_TYPE_MISMATCH:
constant SQLSTATE_TYPE :="22002";
But I see you're right that the table in section 22.1 has it the other
way around. (Digs ... looks like the contradiction is still there in
the published spec.) I wonder if there are any other inconsistencies?
Probably we should assume that the table in section 22.1 is
authoritative.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-28 14:57:28 | Re: [HACKERS] allowed user/db variables |
Previous Message | Aizaz Ahmed | 2003-07-28 14:41:29 | Re: [HACKERS] allowed user/db variables |