| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 14:53:32 |
| Message-ID: | 23473.1336056812@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I agree with Simon --- a disable for that specific message seems like a
>> kluge, and an ugly one at that. (The right solution for this customer
>> is to fix their broken application.) But a generic filter capability
>> might be useful enough to justify its keep.
> Are you thinking basically "regexp against the main text", or
> something else, when you say "generic filter capacity"?
In the context of yesterday's discussions, I wonder whether a filter by
SQLSTATE would be appropriate.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-05-03 14:56:57 | Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-03 14:50:47 | Re: How hard would it be to support LIKE in return declaration of generic record function calls ? |