Re: proposal: additional error fields

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> My guess is that all the ones defined in the SQL standard are
> "expected" errors, more or less by definition, and thus not
> interesting according to Peter G's criteria.
On a scan through the list, I didn't see any exceptions to that,
except for the "F0" class.  To restate what the standard reserves
for standard SQLSTATE values in the form of a regular expression, it
looks like:
'^[0-4A-H][0-9A-Z][0-4A-H][0-9A-Z][0-9A-Z]$'
Eyeballing the errcode page in the docs, it looks like there are
PostgreSQL-assigned values that start with '5', 'P', and 'X'.  That
"F0" class looks suspicious; are those really defined by standard or
did we encroach on standard naming space with PostgreSQL-specific
values?

We also have PostgreSQL-specific values in standard classes where we
use 'P' for the third character, which is fine.
-Kevin