I think so. The syntax is non standard... Satheesh
David Van Couvering wrote: > I had read Jeff's earlier request to file a JIRA bug and did so > (DERBY-357) prior to reading this email. Should I go ahead and > cancel/close this request? > > Thanks, > > David > > Satheesh Bandaram wrote: > >> I am not sure if we should document this syntax. This is highly >> unusual syntax and definitely not standard. >> >> An interesting enhancement to Derby would be to convert these >> diagnostic VTIs into pseudo system tables. Derby has SYSCS_UTIL and >> other system schemas and it would be great to provide a pseudo system >> table interface to all diagnostic VTIs as system tables in one of >> these system schemas. Would be a great project to learn and enhance >> Derby SQL compilation and schema management areas. >> >> If there is any interest, I could file a Jira ENHANCEMENT request and >> provide some information.... >> >> Satheesh >> >>> The way to get it to work currently I found in the tests >>> (org.apache.derbyTesting.functionTests.tests.lang.errorCode.java) >>> you do: (in ij:) >>> select * from new org.apache.derby.diag.ErrorMessages() c >>> and that dumps out all messages. >>> To get just one particular message, you'd do: >>> select * from new org.apache.derby.diag.ErrorMessages() c where >>> sql_state='07000'; >>> >>> I am wondering though, is it ok to document this? >>> It's very non-standard way of doing things... >>> >>> At the same time, to recreate your doc with additional comments, it >>> must be possible to write a program that uses the ErrorMessages vti >>> in combination with an extra file(/extra files) & attaches the extra >>> hints for each errormessage...And build the error message doc up >>> that way. So you'd miss a manual step to keep error messages and >>> debugging hints in sync. >>> >>> >> >> > > >
