From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: the case for machine-readable error fields |
Date: | 2009-08-04 21:30:16 |
Message-ID: | 20090804213016.GR6494@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane escribió:
> However, I wonder whether we could turn this around. Instead of an
> open-ended project to add an ill-defined collection of fields to an
> ill-defined collection of error cases, maybe we could identify a
> very short list of cases where it's known to be useful to pull a
> specific bit of information out of a specific error message. And
> then implement just those.
Hmm, yeah, it makes sense to look at the problem this way.
> The bottom line behind my complaining is that this isn't going to be
> helpful unless it's very clearly defined which error reports produce
> what auxiliary fields. The impression I got from Alvaro's comments
> was that he wanted to decorate everything in sight with anything he
> could think of, which perhaps is not what he intended.
Right :-(
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-08-04 21:45:42 | Re: the case for machine-readable error fields |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-08-04 21:23:54 | Re: the case for machine-readable error fields |