Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:06:37PM -0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > 
> > > If that's what we're trying to solve, I don't think that adding
> > > some kind of proprietary shorthand coding is a good idea.  If
> > > we're do to this at all, it should be a connection-based GUC
> > > option, and use some standard formal like XML fragments.
> > 
> > +1 to this idea in general,

I think the train left the station on this issue quite a while ago.  The
error messages have been like they are now for six releases.  I don't
have any use for changing the format.

Clients can produce XML or JSON or whatever format you like already
anyway.  The protocol is perfectly defined already.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support