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
