Re: enhanced error fields

2013/1/4 Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 4 January 2013 18:07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Exactly.  To my mind, the *entire* point of this patch is to remove the
>> need for people to try to dig information out of potentially-localized
>> message strings.  It's not clear to me that we have to strain to provide
>> information that isn't in the currently-reported messages --- we are
>> only trying to make it easier for client-side code to extract the
>> information it's likely to need.
>
> It seems that we're in agreement, then. I'll prepare a version of the
> patch very similar to the one I previously posted, but with some
> caveats about how reliably the values can be used. I think that that
> should be fine.

is there agreement of routine_name and trigger_name fields?

Regards

Pavel

>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services