X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6762D1B8C0 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:31:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49806-01 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:31:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AB5D1B8E3 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:31:09 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h83LV9jX014584; Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:31:09 -0400 (EDT) To: josh@agliodbs.com Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages? In-reply-to: <200309031306.14405.josh@agliodbs.com> References: <13339.1061847470@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200309031306.14405.josh@agliodbs.com> Comments: In-reply-to Josh Berkus message dated "Wed, 03 Sep 2003 13:06:14 -0700" Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2003 17:31:09 -0400 Message-ID: <14583.1062624669@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200309/8 X-Sequence-Number: 1964 Josh Berkus 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