Horton

Re: enhanced error fields

Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghegan86@gmail.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, 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: 2013-01-28T21:56:16Z
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 28 January 2013 21:33, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> Another point, in case someone wants to revisit this in the future, is
> that these fields were applied in a way that is contrary to the SQL
> standard, I think.
>
> The presented patch interpreted ROUTINE_NAME as: the error happened
> while executing this function.  But according to the standard, the field
> is only set when the error was directly related to the function itself,
> for example when calling an INSERT statement in a non-volatile function.

Right. It seems to me that ROUTINE_NAME is vastly less compelling than
the fields that are likely to be present in the committed patch. GET
DIAGNOSTICS, as implemented by DB2, allows clients /to poll/ for a
large number of fields. I'm not really interested in that myelf, but
if we were to add something in the same spirit, I think that extending
errdata to support this would not be a sensible approach.

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.

-- 
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan