| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 16:46:01 |
| Message-ID: | 27019.1336063561@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Well, nearby Tom and I discussed demoting the message to DEBUG1 when
> no transaction is in progress. Presumably the two messages would
> share the same SQL state, unless we're going to create separate SQL
> states for connection-closed-not-in-a-txn and
> connection-closed-in-a-txn; and yet I think there's a very decent
> argument that you're much more likely to care about the latter than
> the former.
If we're going to treat the two cases differently then assigning
distinct SQLSTATEs seems entirely reasonable to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-05-03 16:46:34 | Re: outdated comment in heapam.c |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-03 16:41:40 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |