public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages?
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 17:31:09 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Josh Berkus <[email protected]> writes:
> I agree that we don't need descriptions of the meaning of each error message 
> in the command documentation.

> However, the listing of potential error messages is *very* useful to 
> application coders for doing automated handling of errors.   Since we are now
> supporting SQLSTATE responses, perhaps we could have error code ranges for 
> the commands?     Or is that totally unreasonable?

It seems completely impractical to guarantee that any particular command
can produce only some-small-subset of all the possible errors.  There
are too many layers of code involved in handling any SQL command.

			regards, tom lane

view thread (12+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages?
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox