Re: proposal: additional error fields
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: "Peter Geoghegan" <peter@2ndquadrant.com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e@gmx.net>, "Noah Misch" <noah@leadboat.com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-05-02T22:36:19Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: >>> That "F0" class looks suspicious; are those really defined by >>> standard or did we encroach on standard naming space with >>> PostgreSQL-specific values? >> I think we screwed up on that :-(. So we ought to renumber those >> codes anyway. Perhaps use "PF" instead of "F0"? > Sounds good to me. I thought for a few minutes about whether we ought to try to sneak such a change into 9.2. But given that we're talking about probably doing a number of other SQLSTATE reassignments in the future, it seems likely better to wait and absorb all that pain in a single release cycle. It seems moderately unlikely that any client-side code is dependent on these specific assignments, but still I'd rather not see a dribble of "we changed some SQLSTATEs" compatibility flags across several successive releases. regards, tom lane