Re: proposal: additional error fields

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.

I don't deny that we probably need to reclassify a few error cases, and
fix some elogs that should be ereports, before this approach would be
really workable.  My point is that it's *close*, whereas "let's invent
some new error severities" is not close to reality and will break all
sorts of stuff.
        regards, tom lane