Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> writes:
>> Review:
>> The only possible point of concern I see here is the naming of the C
>> identifier. Everything else in class 40 uses ERRCODE_T_R_whatever,
>> with T_R standing for transaction rollback. It's not obvious to me
>> that that convention has any real value, but perhaps we ought to
>> follow it here for the sake of consistency?
> Yeah. Actually at first I used "T_R" convention. After a few seconds
> thought, I realized that "T_R" is not appropreate by the same reason
> you feel. Possible other argument might be "Terminating connection
> always involves transaction rollback. So using T_R is ok". I'm not
> sure this argument is reasonable enough though.
This is not only a matter of some macro name or other. According to the
SQL standard, class 40 itself is defined as "transaction rollback".
If the error condition can't reasonably be regarded as a subcase of
that, you're making a bad choice of SQLSTATE code.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
