Kevin Grittner wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > As a novice I am not sure why we _wouldn't_ create two new > > separate error codes > > The argument for using SQLSTATE 40001 for failures which are > strictly due to concurrency problems, and are likely to work if the > transaction is retried, is that there is already a lot of software > which knows how to do that. On the other hand, going into such code > to turn that into a list of concurrency failure states is probably > only going to cause pain to those with applications intended to work > with multiple DBMS products without much modification.
The way they usually handle that is by having a class of codes that designate that behavior, but I can see now that the number can't be subdivided. :-( -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
