Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:41:30PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> From the table, the 23xxx series is for integrity constraint
>> violations, but they appear not to have gotten too specific about
>> breaking that down; thereby leaving it as an implementation choice:

> Yes; but somewhere along the line we've got exactly the same integrity
> constraint violation sqlcodes as DB2 (and Derby, but that's not very
> surprising as they're both IBM). Can't find anybody else trying very
> hard though.

BTW, that's because we deliberately borrowed as much as we could from
DB2. See the notes near the top of errcodes.h. As you say, nobody
else seems to care much, so that was the only precedent we could find.

regards, tom lane