| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
| Date: | 2012-05-03 17:20:41 |
| Message-ID: | 27799.1336065641@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Would it make sense to use 08003 (connection_does_not_exist) when a
> broken connection for an idle process is discovered, and 08006
> (connection_failure) for the "in transaction" failure? What about a
> failure just after COMMIT and before successfully sending that
> result to the client? I notice there's a SQLSTATE 08007
> (transaction_resolution_unknown), but I don't know whether that
> makes sense on the server side, or just on the client side.
AFAICS, all the 08 class is meant to be issued by client-side code,
not the server. I think we probably have to use nonstandard SQLSTATEs
for these messages.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-05-03 17:21:53 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-05-03 17:16:21 | Re: "unexpected EOF" messages |