Subject Re: Server Exceptions (was Re: [firebird-support] Is using SELECT COUNT (*) in a stored procedure a bad idea? (Once Again))
Author Alexandre Benson Smith
At 23:14 27/01/2004 -0400, you wrote:

>At January 27, 2004, 19:49, Alexandre Benson Smith wrote:
> > If the server could send more detailed data about the exceptions, I could
> > format the exception message on the client side... And leave the
> > referential logic just on the server and decalred just on table
> creation time.
>There has been talks on how to implement the more detailed exceptions.
>The problem at the moment is how the engine and the exception handler
>operates that doesn't permit more detail. Following the discussion on
>the Firebird developers group, there seems to be more work involved
>than one might think, all because of how the whole architecture behind
>Firebird operates. But, it wont be part of Firebird 1.5, and
>hopefully these changes will make their way into FB 2.0.

I am sure that this will require a lot of work, and certainly a lot more
than I have though is "a lot"... Did not expected to be on 1.5...

I started to read Developers group, after the anoucement of Vulcan and
Initial Discussions about FB 2.0... I have some questions and doubts (I am
really interested on cross connection cache of prepared statements), but I
think I should read a bit more before ask something, the hearts, minds and
souls there are so hot :) I don't even know what the Y-valve is :-))) and
when I read a bunch of monograns like BLR, TLS, TDBB, etc.... I just strut
on the chair, take a deep breath and continue reading As I understood what
was told... :)

>Best regards,
> Daniel Rail
> Senior System Engineer
> ACCRA Group Inc. (
> ACCRA Med Software Inc. (

see you...

Alexandre Benson Smith
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda.
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil


Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (
Version: 6.0.572 / Virus Database: 362 - Release Date: 27/01/2004

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]