On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Jan Bilek <jan.bi...@eftlab.com.au> wrote:
> I would like to ask, would you see this solution in general as fine, or is
> there any better way to achieve this? I particularly dislike the part when
> we are trying matching return string on "cached plan must not change result
> type" as error messages might change (e.g. situations using different
> locales), is there any way how to get around this e.g. with enumerator?
Source code says that the errcode being returned is "Feature Not Supported"
which seems unreasonably broad, I'd probably stick with message text
parsing. If you have locale concerns you could just check for one of the
11 different translations that are presently provided. Or combine them,
checking for the error code value first (which probably would be rare
enough in production code to be usable) then fall back to the description.