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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Date
Msg-id 27799.1336065641@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "unexpected EOF" messages  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Responses Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
List pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Next
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: "unexpected EOF" messages