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
