Re: enhanced error fields

On 10 December 2012 20:52, David Johnston <polobo(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> Just skimming this topic but if these enhanced error fields are going to be
> used by software, and we have 99% adherence to a standard, then my first
> reaction is why not just supply "<Not Applicable>" (or "<Not Available>" as
> appropriate) instead of suppressing the field altogether in these (and
> possibly other, future) cases and make adherence for these fields 100%?

Well, this is an area that the standard doesn't have anything to say
about. The standard defines errcodes, but not what fields they make
available. I suppose you could say that the patch proposes that they
become a Postgres extension to the standard.

I probably could have found more places to set the fields. Certainly,
I've already set them in some places where they are not actually
required to be set by the new contract of errcodes.txt/errcodes.h. My
immediate concern is getting something minimal committed, though. I
think the latest revision handles all of the important cases (i.e.
cases where applications may want a well-principled way of detecting a
particular kind of error, like an error due to the violation of a
particular, known constraint).

--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services