On 28 January 2013 21:33, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > Another point, in case someone wants to revisit this in the future, is > that these fields were applied in a way that is contrary to the SQL > standard, I think. > > The presented patch interpreted ROUTINE_NAME as: the error happened > while executing this function. But according to the standard, the field > is only set when the error was directly related to the function itself, > for example when calling an INSERT statement in a non-volatile function.
Right. It seems to me that ROUTINE_NAME is vastly less compelling than the fields that are likely to be present in the committed patch. GET DIAGNOSTICS, as implemented by DB2, allows clients /to poll/ for a large number of fields. I'm not really interested in that myelf, but if we were to add something in the same spirit, I think that extending errdata to support this would not be a sensible approach. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I can't imagine that it would be terribly useful to anyone (including Pavel) to have a GET DIAGNOSTICS style ROUTINE_NAME. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers