On 28 December 2012 19:55, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/iseries/v5r3/index.jsp?topic=%2Fdb2%2Frbafzmstgetdiag.htm
I'm unconvinced by this. First of all, it only applies to the GET
DIAGNOSTICS statement, and the only implementation that actually
currently uses that is DB2, AFAICT. Secondly, DB2 only provides it for
very specific errcode classes that relate to problems that are
peculiar to routines/functions, so in general you cannot rely on the
information being available in the same way as you intend. Clearly,
DB2 provides it for completeness, and not because you can rely on it
being available for error handling purposes. On the other hand, your
latest revision of the patch (eelog5.patch) sees plpgsql jury-rigged
to set the fields itself, which seems like a whole other proposition
entirely.
What's more, you're changing ErrorData to make this happen, rather
than having the user interrogate the server for this information as
GET DIAGNOSTICS does. So I don't see that this supports your case at
all. I maintain that having an exception handler's behaviour vary
based on a field that describes a routine that originally raised the
function is a really bad idea, and that we should not facilitate it.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services