Re: FE/BE Protocol 3.0 Draft - Some Comments

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: ljb <lbayuk(at)mindspring(dot)com>, <pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FE/BE Protocol 3.0 Draft - Some Comments
Date: 2003-04-23 14:23:15
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0304231107520.1676-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-interfaces

Tom Lane writes:

> Agreed, it's much richer than it was before, but I disagree with your
> opinion that empty complexity is being added. There are good examples
> in the existing error message repertoire for each of the concepts I
> propose adding. For instance, here are two examples of existing
> messages that are offering hints:

Message + hint is OK, but can you give an example of a "detail"?
(Better more than one.)

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-interfaces by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-04-23 15:26:26 Re: FE/BE Protocol 3.0 Draft - Some Comments
Previous Message Lee Kindness 2003-04-23 08:47:06 ECPG thread-safety