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