X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 31F5D474E42; Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:59:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2GHxDub021238;
	Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:59:13 -0500 (EST)
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org, pgsql-interfaces@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Upgrading the backend's error-message infrastructure
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303160302550.3020-100000@peter.localdomain> 
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303160302550.3020-100000@peter.localdomain>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:06:19 +0100"
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:59:12 -0500
Message-ID: <21237.1047837552@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200303/656
X-Sequence-Number: 36902

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Given that we now need order-of-thirty possible field types, do you feel
>> uncomfortable with a single-byte field identifier in the FE/BE protocol?

> There's a possible solution:  SQL99 part 3 defines numerical codes for
> each of these fields (table 12/section 5.14).  The codes are between
> around 0 and 40.

Hmm.  I can't see any advantage to these over assigning our own codes;
ours would have at least *some* mnemonic value, rather than being chosen
completely at random ...

			regards, tom lane