From: | Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PROPOSAL - User's exception in PL/pgSQL |
Date: | 2005-06-22 03:06:21 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0506220502050.8113-100000@kix.fsv.cvut.cz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz> writes:
> > I wont to prohibit synonyms in exception (every exception has unique
> > sqlstate).
>
> I don't think that's a particularly good idea --- maybe if SQL had been
> designed according to your worldview, it'd be like that, but it isn't
> and you can't retroactively force it to be. The SQLSTATEs are
> deliberately designed to be fairly coarse, not unique. I believe the
> design intention is to distinguish between two cases when it's likely
> that client application code would do something different in the two
> cases. Not to be "unique for uniqueness' sake".
>
it's can be source of bugs. For me, uniqueness sqlstates is 20 lines more.
Ok. I will send patch without unique states.
Pavel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-06-22 03:07:31 | Re: Server instrumentation patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-22 02:57:31 | Re: Schedule for 8.1 feature freeze |