Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message: >> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> In the context of yesterday's discussions, I wonder whether a >>> filter by SQLSTATE would be appropriate. >> >> I'm worried it's not really granular enough. > > Yeah. Just to be sure we're not inventing a problem here, can someone produce an example of a situation where it would not be granular enough (assuming we correct bad SQLSTATE choices where they exist)? I count 232 distinct SQLSTATE values (139 standard values and 93 PostgreSQL-specific values), and we can create more if we want them; although I would recommend against doing that to get finer resolution on a standard SQLSTATE value. A standard value which is too coarse would be the strongest argument for adding some other mechanism, IMO. If we do, I would be inclined toward something to identify distinct conditions within a SQLSTATE, rather than some overarching independent mechanism. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
