Re: Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages?
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200309031306.14405.josh@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Do we need "Diagnostics" sections of SQL command reference pages?
|
Список | pgsql-docs |
Tom, > I'm starting to look at updating the docs to match 7.4 error message > spellings. I find that a large part of the work I'll have to do is in > updating the "Diagnostics" (formerly "Outputs") section of the command > reference pages. I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to just rip > out these sections entirely. They seem like nearly content-free fluff > to me --- the listings of possible error messages are always incomplete, > often out of date, and arguably useless. If there is an error message > that's not clear enough by itself, we'd better fix the error message > instead of putting a gloss on it in the reference page. > > Comments? I agree that we don't need descriptions of the meaning of each error message in the command documentation. However, the listing of potential error messages is *very* useful to application coders for doing automated handling of errors. Since we are now supporting SQLSTATE responses, perhaps we could have error code ranges for the commands? Or is that totally unreasonable? -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: