Re: proposal: additional error fields
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: additional error fields |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZEjq7va+SfDZQwk6E4emEWThENNyxfqEGhB3iuoT1OJw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: additional error fields (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: additional error fields
Re: proposal: additional error fields Re: proposal: additional error fields |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I continue to maintain that the SQLSTATE is a much better basis for > solving this problem. Its categories are already pretty close to > what Peter needs: basically, IIUC, he wants to know about classes > 53, 58, maybe F0, and XX. This is really too mushy, IMHO. ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_CONNECTIONS isn't what I'd call an oh-shit condition even though it's in class 53, but this "could not create archive status file \"%s\"" is definitely an oh-shit regardless of what errcode_for_file_access() returns. Also, the fact is that most people do not log SQLSTATEs. And even if they did, they're not going to know to grep for 53|58|maybe F0|XX. What we need is an easy way for people to pick out any log entries that represent conditions that should never occur as a result of any legitimate user activity. Like, with grep. And, without needing to have a PhD in Postgresology. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: