DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=kea4ZJOE3PF7Pr5qDCrcFtPKyIH/E0PW0DYsr9pVywifGrTzmmzCzwPlgdKYsM2JTp
	bnKZNzaePq0PvdJV9dCxvR14HZ4SfCki4GPx/W7SALwda+4Gl8pxGgEtrG/pKcSDmRdy
	t0Q6Xt6Wq1F3dDYYNcgqUZLJGIvmY76BjXF7c=
Message-ID: <4C602E9D.40501@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:36:45 +0900
From: Satoshi Nagayasu <satoshi.nagayasu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; ja;
	rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: ECPG - Some errno definitions don't match to the manual
References: <4C4847D0.9030001@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin286hRE0oLZFr4quDp6esNNztHmYUhfLO0vf_4@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin286hRE0oLZFr4quDp6esNNztHmYUhfLO0vf_4@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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>