Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

Tom Lane escribió:

> However, I wonder whether we could turn this around.  Instead of an
> open-ended project to add an ill-defined collection of fields to an
> ill-defined collection of error cases, maybe we could identify a
> very short list of cases where it's known to be useful to pull a
> specific bit of information out of a specific error message.  And
> then implement just those.

Hmm, yeah, it makes sense to look at the problem this way.

> The bottom line behind my complaining is that this isn't going to be
> helpful unless it's very clearly defined which error reports produce
> what auxiliary fields.  The impression I got from Alvaro's comments
> was that he wanted to decorate everything in sight with anything he
> could think of, which perhaps is not what he intended.

Right :-(

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.