Re: the case for machine-readable error fields

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter pointed out upthread that the SQL standard already calls out some
>> things that should be available in this way --- has anyone studied that
>> yet?

> Yeah, I gave it a look.  It looks useful as a guide, though obviously
> not directly implementable because it relies on GET DIAGNOSTICS to have
> somewhere to store the diagnostics information into (a host variable,
> etc).  They do define that there is a TABLE_NAME, etc.  Not much else to
> report at the moment.

I'm not proposing that we implement GET DIAGNOSTICS as a statement.
I was just thinking that the list of values it's supposed to make
available might do as a guide to what extra error fields we need to
provide where.
        regards, tom lane