Re: Error code mixup?

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> My copy of SQL99 assigns
> most specific type mismatch        2200G
> null value, no indicator parameter    22002
> but elog.h has it set up the other way around.  Can someone clear this up
> for me?

Hoo, that's interesting.  I believe that I actually built the original
version of errcodes.h by editing the list of codes in the Ada-binding
part of the spec (part 2 13.4 rule 2e), which includes, in my draft copy,
      DATA_EXCEPTION_NULL_VALUE_NO_INDICATOR_PARAMETER:              constant SQLSTATE_TYPE :="2200G";
DATA_EXCEPTION_MOST_SPECIFIC_TYPE_MISMATCH:             constant SQLSTATE_TYPE :="22002";
 

But I see you're right that the table in section 22.1 has it the other
way around.  (Digs ... looks like the contradiction is still there in
the published spec.)  I wonder if there are any other inconsistencies?

Probably we should assume that the table in section 22.1 is
authoritative.
        regards, tom lane