2009/8/5 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Peter pointed out upthread that the SQL standard already calls out some >>> things that should be available in this way --- has anyone studied that >>> yet? > >> Yeah, I gave it a look. It looks useful as a guide, though obviously >> not directly implementable because it relies on GET DIAGNOSTICS to have >> somewhere to store the diagnostics information into (a host variable, >> etc). They do define that there is a TABLE_NAME, etc. Not much else to >> report at the moment. > > I'm not proposing that we implement GET DIAGNOSTICS as a statement. > I was just thinking that the list of values it's supposed to make > available might do as a guide to what extra error fields we need to > provide where. >
+1 regards Pavel Stehule > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
