From: | Jürgen Purtz <juergen(at)purtz(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-sql(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | SQL conformity regarding SQLSTATE |
Date: | 2017-12-19 14:14:50 |
Message-ID: | c2c1a96d-dae9-6667-bf11-eb423ee90385@purtz.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Hello,
SQLSTATE is defined by the SQL standard. Our usage of the value seems to
contain some defects in respect to it: SQLCODE is divided into a *class*
(first two bytes) and a *subclass* (next 3 bytes). If an implementation
defines additional values to support its own non- standardised features,
it must use values within the two ranges [5-9] or [I-Z] for the first
byte of the class *or* the first byte of the subclass. Our preferred
byte for this case is P. But there are cases where other decisions have
taken place.
Here is a list of values, which violate the above rule as the values are
in the range which is reserved for the standard but (actually) are not
defined by the standard. I compared our list in the version 10
documentation with the SQL:2011 standard. (Unfortunately I have no
access to SQL:2016. Maybe, some values of my list are defined there.)
01008, 03000, 0B000, 23502 - 23514, 39001, 42501 - 42939, F0000, F0001.
With that said I have some questions:
a) We strive for standard conformity as well as for continuity in our
product. How can we solve that conflict?
b) Shall we add a comment into 'errcodes.txt' to remind everybody to the
mentioned rule?
c) Is it possible to rearrange the rows of 'errcode.txt' in a way that
reflects the natural sort order of SQLSTATE? This will be helpful for
reading Appendix A of our documentation which is generated out of
'errcode.txt'. But: a lot of other Postgres parts depends on this file -
may be, some unwanted side effects will arise?
d) Do we have representatives in ISO's national bodies (ANSI, DIN, BSI,
...) to follow and influence the standardisation process?
Jürgen Purtz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-19 15:30:14 | Re: SQL conformity regarding SQLSTATE |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-12-18 14:26:18 | Re: XML Parsing in Postgresql |