Re: [HACKERS] Error codes revisited

2003-03-06 Thread Christoph Haller
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.

Re: [HACKERS] Error codes revisited

2003-03-05 Thread Tom Lane
[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

Re: [HACKERS] Error codes revisited

2003-03-05 Thread greg
-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 protocol

Re: [HACKERS] Error codes revisited

2003-03-05 Thread Ross J. Reedstrom
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 maybe