On Wednesday 13 January 2010 00:07:53 Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 19:43 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 January 2010 09:40:03 Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 06:30 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > Currently the patch does not yet do anything to avoid letting the
> > > > protocol out of sync. What do you think about adding a flag for error
> > > > codes not to communicate with the client (Similarly to COMERROR)?
> > > >
> > > > So that one could do an elog(ERROR & ERROR_NO_SEND_CLIENT, .. or
> > > > such?
> > >
> > > Seems fairly important piece.
> >
> > Do you aggree on the approach then? Do you want to do it?
>
> If you would like to prototype something on this issue it would be
> gratefully received. I will review when submitted, though I may need
> other review also.
Will do - likely not before Saturday though.
> I'm still reworking other code, so things might change under you, though
> not deliberately so. I will post as soon as I can, which isn't yet.
No problem. Readapting a relatively minor amount of code isnt that hard.
Andres
