2013/1/28 Peter Geoghegan <peter.geoghega...@gmail.com>: > On 28 January 2013 21:33, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> Another point, in case someone wants to revisit this in the future, is >> that these fields were applied in a way that is contrary to the SQL >> standard, I think. >> >> The presented patch interpreted ROUTINE_NAME as: the error happened >> while executing this function. But according to the standard, the field >> is only set when the error was directly related to the function itself, >> for example when calling an INSERT statement in a non-volatile function. > > Right. It seems to me that ROUTINE_NAME is vastly less compelling than > the fields that are likely to be present in the committed patch. GET > DIAGNOSTICS, as implemented by DB2, allows clients /to poll/ for a > large number of fields. I'm not really interested in that myelf, but > if we were to add something in the same spirit, I think that extending > errdata to support this would not be a sensible approach. > > Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I can't imagine that it would be terribly > useful to anyone (including Pavel) to have a GET DIAGNOSTICS style > ROUTINE_NAME.
I hoped so I can use it inside exception handler Regards Pavel > > -- > Regards, > Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
