| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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 19:33:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_Vic_egK5QnjTQu0Si7tTUzgB75xVeVpbm89N3hB=8aow@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 28 December 2012 19:23, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> for this subject ANSI SQL is more relevant source or manual for DB2 or
> Oracle. Design of Python and native PL languages are different. Python
> can use complex nested structures. PL - PL/pgSQL or PL/PSM is designed
> for work with simply scalar types. So these environments are not
> comparable.
I don't see how the fact that Python can use nested data structures
has any bearing (you could argue that plpgsql does too, fwiw).
Please direct me towards the manual of DB2 or Oracle where it says
that something like routine_name is exposed for error handling
purposes. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't believe that ANSI
SQL has anything to say about any of these error fields. You've just
lifted the names of the fields from various information_schema
catalogs, which is hardly the same thing.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-28 19:55:52 | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-12-28 19:23:28 | Re: enhanced error fields |