[HACKERS] Error code mixup?

2003-07-28 Thread Peter Eisentraut 
My copy of SQL99 assigns

most specific type mismatch 2200G
null value, no indicator parameter  22002

but elog.h has it set up the other way around.  Can someone clear this up
for me?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] Error code mixup?

2003-07-28 Thread Tom Lane 
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 My copy of SQL99 assigns
 most specific type mismatch   2200G
 null value, no indicator parameter22002
 but elog.h has it set up the other way around.  Can someone clear this up
 for me?

Hoo, that's interesting.  I believe that I actually built the original
version of errcodes.h by editing the list of codes in the Ada-binding
part of the spec (part 2 13.4 rule 2e), which includes, in my draft copy,

   DATA_EXCEPTION_NULL_VALUE_NO_INDICATOR_PARAMETER:
   constant SQLSTATE_TYPE :=2200G;
   DATA_EXCEPTION_MOST_SPECIFIC_TYPE_MISMATCH:
   constant SQLSTATE_TYPE :=22002;

But I see you're right that the table in section 22.1 has it the other
way around.  (Digs ... looks like the contradiction is still there in
the published spec.)  I wonder if there are any other inconsistencies?

Probably we should assume that the table in section 22.1 is
authoritative.

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend