On 29 January 2013 17:05, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 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
Right, but is that really any use to you if it becomes available for a small subset of errors, specifically, errors that directly relate to the function? You're not going to be able to use it to trace the function where an arbitrary error occurred, if we do something consistent with GET DIAGNOSTICS as described by the SQL standard, it seems. I think that what the SQL standard intends here is actually consistent with what we're going to do with CONSTRAINT_NAME and so on. I just happen to think it's much less interesting, but am not opposed to it in principle (though I may oppose it in practice, if writing the feature means bloating up errdata). -- 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
