From: Satoshi Nagayasu <satoshi.nagayasu@gmail.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Cc: Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: ECPG - Some errno definitions don't match to the manual
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:36:45 +0900
Message-ID: <4C602E9D.40501@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin286hRE0oLZFr4quDp6esNNztHmYUhfLO0vf_4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4C4847D0.9030001@gmail.com>
<AANLkTin286hRE0oLZFr4quDp6esNNztHmYUhfLO0vf_4@mail.gmail.com>
On 2010/08/09 21:27, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm now investigating SQLCODE and SQLSTATE, and I have found
>> that some of the errno definitions don't match to the manual.
>> What does it mean? The manual is not up to date?
>
> Yeah, I think that's what it means. Perhaps you could provide a patch
> for the docs?
Sure, I will make a patch for this. Please wait a moment.
> Another question is whether we oughn't to remove all mention of the
> specific values of these constants from the documentation. That
> wouldn't prevent all problems in this area, because constants can
> still be added and removed, but ISTM that including the specific
> numerical values here is encouraging people to depend on those values
> when they probably shouldn't.
Hmm, it's a difficult point. From the application programmers' viewpoint, error codes and error numbers would be an interface between their application and PostgreSQL internals. So I think (and I hope) it should be in the programmer's manual. On the other hand, from the PostgreSQL developer's viewpoint, it is hard to maintain all of documents up to date. So removing them from the manual will make maintenance easier.
I found that this difference was generated by the very very old change in the code repository. And I think it would never be happen anymore, because nowadays PostgreSQL developers, especially code reviewers, always require "document updates/patches" for any patches before applying. (as all you know :)
I agree with that taking care about both code and documents is not so easy, but the current review/development process seems to be appropriate.
Any comments or suggestions?
--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <satoshi.nagayasu@gmail.com>
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: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: satoshi.nagayasu@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, meskes@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ECPG - Some errno definitions don't match to the manual
In-Reply-To: <4C602E9D.40501@gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox