| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Date: | 2012-12-28 20:40:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_U1oQ-8L271+vLycLiwWDtQkSzgZ1oz=vUtKXiOwnh2iw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28 December 2012 20:34, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> Isn't that the whole point of this patch? The only purpose of this
> feature is to make the exception information available in a
> "machine-readable" way. That functionality has been requested many
> times over the years.
Right, and I agree that it's very useful for some fields (if you can
actually have a reasonable set of guarantees about where each becomes
available). I just don't think that it's worth including fields like
routine_name within ErrorData, and in fact it may be harmful to do so.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-28 20:40:44 | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-12-28 20:34:39 | Re: enhanced error fields |