On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 11:32:06AM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Sam Mason <s...@samason.me.uk> wrote: > > Not sure if overloading SQLSTATE is the right way of doing this is > > it? It already has things like 23514 for a check violation and any > > other client code relying in this would break if it started getting > > different things back. > > If that's the standard SQLSTATE, I agree -- it suggests a need for > some user-controllable field which could be set to a value to indicate > a particular problem. Does the standard have anything like that, or > would that be an extension?
Not sure how standard it is, but the docs[1] would suggest that it's trying to following something. Microsoft's MSDN docs on ODBC[2] show a reasonable similarity, the first Oracle doc I found[3] where similar as well. It just looks like a fixed set of numbers for a fixed set of conditions, can't find any canonical definition about what it's really for though. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ [1] http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/errcodes-appendix.html [2] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms714687(VS.85).aspx [3] http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/appdev.102/a58231/appd.htm I think I prefer PG's urls! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
