| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Date: | 2013-01-04 17:12:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYQiwLXbh+E+0-NU6BKx8fkvG_-_3LwoSmBgHaA_iP1hw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | Postg무지개 토토SQL |
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Ascertaining the identity of the object in question perfectly
> unambiguously, so that you can safely do something like lookup a
> comment on the object, seems like something way beyond what I'd
> envisioned for this feature. Why should the comment be useful in an
> error handler anyway? At best, that seems like a nice-to-have extra to
> me. The vast majority are not even going to think about the ambiguity
> that may exist. They'll just write:
>
> if (constraint_name == "upc")
> MessageBox("That is not a valid barcode.");
The people who are content to do that don't need this patch at all.
They can just apply a regexp to the message that comes back from the
server and then set constraint_name based on what pops out of the
regex. And then do just what you did there.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | anarazel@anarazel.de | 2013-01-04 17:19:09 | Re: enhanced error fields |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-01-04 17:10:16 | Re: enhanced error fields |