Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> writes: >> Review: >> The only possible point of concern I see here is the naming of the C >> identifier. Everything else in class 40 uses ERRCODE_T_R_whatever, >> with T_R standing for transaction rollback. It's not obvious to me >> that that convention has any real value, but perhaps we ought to >> follow it here for the sake of consistency?
> Yeah. Actually at first I used "T_R" convention. After a few seconds > thought, I realized that "T_R" is not appropreate by the same reason > you feel. Possible other argument might be "Terminating connection > always involves transaction rollback. So using T_R is ok". I'm not > sure this argument is reasonable enough though. This is not only a matter of some macro name or other. According to the SQL standard, class 40 itself is defined as "transaction rollback". If the error condition can't reasonably be regarded as a subcase of that, you're making a bad choice of SQLSTATE code. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers