Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > A minimum requirement for such a thing, in my opinion, is that > *every* occurrence of one of the targeted SQLSTATE codes should be > able to produce the same auxiliary fields with the same meanings. > If you can't define it that way, then you haven't actually made > things better than looking at the message text. I would hope that SQLSTATE *categorizes* messages rather than uniquely identifying them. If it is being used correctly (as I see it), there could well be different specific messages within the category identified by a SQLSTATE for which different identifiers are useful. I'm not so interested in using this feature, personally; but I am concerned about how the issue might affect our use of SQLSTATE, about which I do care. Many products have a sequence number to identify their messages in addition to using SQLSTATE to classify them. That seems pretty sensible to me. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
