Horton

Re: enhanced error fields

Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "anarazel@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Date: 2013-01-29T17:13:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Create a "sort support" interface API for faster sorting.

On 29 January 2013 17:05, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I can't imagine that it would be terribly
>> useful to anyone (including Pavel) to have a GET DIAGNOSTICS style
>> ROUTINE_NAME.
>
> I hoped so I can use it inside exception handler

Right, but is that really any use to you if it becomes available for a
small subset of errors, specifically, errors that directly relate to
the function? You're not going to be able to use it to trace the
function where an arbitrary error occurred, if we do something
consistent with GET DIAGNOSTICS as described by the SQL standard, it
seems.

I think that what the SQL standard intends here is actually consistent
with what we're going to do with CONSTRAINT_NAME and so on. I just
happen to think it's much less interesting, but am not opposed to it
in principle (though I may oppose it in practice, if writing the
feature means bloating up errdata).

-- 
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan