Re: ambiguous sql states

Tom Lane writes:

> Dave's correct, that's what we're currently using.  I'm happy to change
> it if someone can suggest an appropriate SQLSTATE (even a category...)
> to use instead.

I had a private chat with Dave about this.  It was my view that a missing
file that is read by a backend COPY is indistinguishable from, say, a
missing table or trigger, as far as recovery options by the client
application are concerned.

> I would however like to know why ecpg cares.

It doesn't.  This is related to an Informix porting project, which
apparently has a separate error code for its LOAD command.  Why exactly
that would affect our COPY isn't totally clear to me.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e@gmx.net