* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > I believe the attached patch does this now. Under my test case it
> > correctly handled things. I'm certainly happier with it this way and
> > apologize for not realizing this better approach sooner. Please
> > comment.
>
> Applied (with trivial stylistic changes) as far back as 8.0, which
> was the first release that would try to continue after an error.
Great, thanks! Now if I can convince you to look at the Kerberos patch
I posted on -hackers... ;)
Thanks again,
Stephen
