Sam Mason <s...@samason.me.uk> wrote: > Not sure if overloading SQLSTATE is the right way of doing this is > it? It already has things like 23514 for a check violation and any > other client code relying in this would break if it started getting > different things back. If that's the standard SQLSTATE, I agree -- it suggests a need for some user-controllable field which could be set to a value to indicate a particular problem. Does the standard have anything like that, or would that be an extension? > p.s. I think you were agreeing with everything else I was saying, > even if I didn't explain myself well enough for you to understand > me! It's good to see convergence, then. Sorry I misunderstood. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
