Re: proposal: additional error fields

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: proposal: additional error fields
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoZEjq7va+SfDZQwk6E4emEWThENNyxfqEGhB3iuoT1OJw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: proposal: additional error fields  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: proposal: additional error fields  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: proposal: additional error fields  (David Johnston <polobo@yahoo.com>)
Re: proposal: additional error fields  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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.  ERRCODE_TOO_MANY_CONNECTIONS isn't
what I'd call an oh-shit condition even though it's in class 53, but
this "could not create archive status file \"%s\"" is definitely an
oh-shit regardless of what errcode_for_file_access() returns.

Also, the fact is that most people do not log SQLSTATEs.  And even if
they did, they're not going to know to grep for 53|58|maybe F0|XX.
What we need is an easy way for people to pick out any log entries
that represent conditions that should never occur as a result of any
legitimate user activity.  Like, with grep.  And, without needing to
have a PhD in Postgresology.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: proposal: additional error fields
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: proposal: additional error fields