From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id E3ED724FE4 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id deXD8O3RD32J for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp61.i.mail.ru (smtp61.i.mail.ru [217.69.128.41]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 415FE24F14 for ; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 16:35:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 23:35:11 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] box: rfc for stacked diagnostic area in Tarantool Message-ID: <20190812203511.GA32337@atlas> References: <101e2b28c29ebfc4cf58b45e534207fd4f6d9b3a.1564657285.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> <20190807232755.s7gruhxeja75hob7@tkn_work_nb> <20190808232900.bf6wj2g6of4cf6ti@tkn_work_nb> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190808232900.bf6wj2g6of4cf6ti@tkn_work_nb> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: Alexander Turenko Cc: Vladislav Shpilevoy , tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Kirill Shcherbatov * Alexander Turenko [19/08/09 10:11]: > > > > > > > > Maybe we should use 'warnings' term here if this feature is intended to > > > be used for SQL warnings. If we want to use the proposed mechanics for > > > warnings, then my proposal re using 'cause' term looks doubtful. Don't > > > sure whether we should introduce some kind of warnings list for the > > > diagnostic area or reuse 'cause' / 'parent' / ... field of struct error. > > This is most confusing part for me. Say, we want to set a warning re > precision loss during execution a SQL query. The response will be > successful. There will not be an error to wrap this warning. How to > store the warning (it looks as a query-local object) and how to show it > in the response (in the binary protocol)? > > Another case: we emit a warning re precission loss and an error occurs > afterwards during the query execution (say, a constraint violation). The > warning is not a reason / cause / parent for the error and it is not > logical to using our current terms for this case. Warnings are an entirely different beast to stacked errors. When we get to supporting warnings, this will be a separate object in the diagnostics. > We want to support SQL stacked diagnostics and it seems that the current > proposal does not move us forward to them. I had read mysql docs on > that, but I hope the standard described quite same thing: > https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/diagnostics-area.html > > I think we need at least keep SQL stacked diagnostics in a mind and > explicitly decide whether we'll going (a bit?) forward to support them > within this issue / proposal / discussion. Yes. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia