Re: "unexpected EOF" messages - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Date
Msg-id 11614.1336069551@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "unexpected EOF" messages  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes:
> I still think it might be useful to differentiate in our server log
> between the case where the transaction failed and the case where the
> transaction committed but we don't know that the client got the news
> of that.  How about something like:
> 2DP01  connection_lost_during_transaction
> 2DP02  connection_lost_during_commit_notification

That would be a useful distinction, but I'm not sure how easily our
code can make it.
> I'm less sure what makes sense if the connection fails while idle
> (not in transaction).  If you don't like "Class 08 * Connection
> Exception" for that, I'm not quite sure where it belongs.

I'm not convinced that these cases belong in any of the standard's
classes.  IMO the standard is only standardizing application-visible
error cases, which these are not.  In particular I think class 2D is
not appropriate, since AFAICS the standard means that to pertain to
incorrect issuance of a COMMIT or ROLLBACK command.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Advisory locks seem rather broken
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: CLOG extension