| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(dot)geoghegan86(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2013-01-27 07:39:03 |
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAoSQrGobxNuTP0yK8=7=66kWRCaUAfhXBvBW1Pzrpduw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
>
> Personally, on the face of it I'd expect the "inconsistency" to simply
> reflect the fact that the error related to the referencing table or
> referenced table. Pavel's original patch followed the same convention
> (though it also had a constraint_table field). I'm having a hard time
> figuring out the standards intent here, and I'm not sure that we
> should even care, because that applies on to GET DIAGNOSTICS, which
> isn't really the same thing as what we have here. I defer to you,
> though - it's not as if I feel too strongly about it.
>
These fields will be reused in GET DIAGNOSTICS statement in PL/pgSQL.
It is was primary goal.
Regards
Pavel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-01-27 08:50:51 | Re: Enabling Checksums |
| Previous Message | Satoshi Nagayasu | 2013-01-27 07:32:58 | Re: buffer assertion tripping under repeat pgbench load |