Re: enhanced error fields
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: 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: 2013-01-05T18:06:57Z
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 →
-
Create a "sort support" interface API for faster sorting.
- c6e3ac11b60a 9.2.0 cited
2013/1/5 Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 5 January 2013 16:56, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote: >>> It seems that we're in agreement, then. I'll prepare a version of the >>> patch very similar to the one I previously posted, but with some >>> caveats about how reliably the values can be used. I think that that >>> should be fine. >> >> is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields? > > Well, Tom and I are both opposed to including those fields. Peter E > seemed to support it in some way, but didn't respond to Tom's > criticisms (which were just a restatement of my own). So, it seems to > me that we're not going to do that, assuming nothing changes. if I understand well Robert Haas is for including these fields - so score is still 2:2 - but this is not a match :) I have no more new arguments for these fields - yes, there are no change Pavel > > -- > Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services