Re: proposal: additional error fields

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On tis, 2012-05-01 at 20:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't deny that we probably need to reclassify a few error cases,
>> and fix some elogs that should be ereports, before this approach would
>> be really workable.  My point is that it's *close*, whereas "let's
>> invent some new error severities" is not close to reality and will
>> break all sorts of stuff.

> We might hit a road block because some of these sqlstates are defined by
> the SQL standard.

My guess is that all the ones defined in the SQL standard are "expected"
errors, more or less by definition, and thus not interesting according
to Peter G's criteria.

			regards, tom lane