Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > As a novice I am not sure why we _wouldn't_ create two new
> > separate error codes
>
> The argument for using SQLSTATE 40001 for failures which are
> strictly due to concurrency problems, and are likely to work if the
> transaction is retried, is that there is already a lot of software
> which knows how to do that. On the other hand, going into such code
> to turn that into a list of concurrency failure states is probably
> only going to cause pain to those with applications intended to work
> with multiple DBMS products without much modification.
The way they usually handle that is by having a class of codes that
designate that behavior, but I can see now that the number can't be
subdivided. :-(
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +