Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: "unexpected EOF" messages

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,<magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Date: 2012-05-03 12:46:57
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander  wrote:
> Also, AFAIK we don't *have* a "message type" at this point (one of
> the things said mythical project wanted to look at), so the only
> thing we could really filter on would be the whole text of the
> message, no?
We have SQLSTATE, but this seems to be one of those situations where
we've been sloppy about using the right value.  We seem to be using
'08P01' (protocol_violation), which is also used for finding the
wrong bytes on a working connection.  It seems to me a broken
connection is exactly the case where you would expect to see '08006'
(connection_failure).  FWIW, there are also specific exceptions for
rejecting a connection attempt, and for attempting to send something
when no connection exists.
We don't need to invent new mechanisms for categorizing messages; we
just need to start consistently using the one we have correctly.


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-05-03 12:48:43
Subject: Re: ALTER DATABASE and datallowconn
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-05-03 12:36:56
Subject: Re: "unexpected EOF" messages

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group