>
> Given the repeatedly-asked-for functionalities (like error codes)
> for which the stopper has been the long-threatened protocol revision,
> I'd think it might be boring, but would hardly be thankless. Heck, I'd
> expect a few whoops of joy around the lists.
>
Yes. Error codes would be great.
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 11:04:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> There is still barely enough time to do the long-threatened protocol
> revision for 7.4, if we suck it up and get started on that now. I've
> been avoiding the issue myself, because it seems generally boring and
> thankless work, but m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The *last* thing we need is a half-baked stopgap solution that we'll
> have to be backwards-compatible with forevermore. Fix it right or
> don't do it at all, is MHO.
I agree.
> There is still barely enough time to do the long-threatened protoco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> What about a variable that allowed the codes to be switched on so a
> number is returned instead of a string? This would be off by default
> so as not to break existing applications. Similarly, we can return
> other information (FILE, LINE, etc.) with different variab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As promised, I've been looking over the error handling (especially
the archived discussions) and it's a real rat's nest. :) I'm not
sure where we should start, but just getting some error codes
enabled and out there would be a great start. The pro
