Thread: Re: Logging function calls to figure out lo_close log entr

Re: Logging function calls to figure out lo_close log entr

From
Ron Snyder
Date:

> That does make it tough ;)
> On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 16:00, Ron Snyder wrote:
> > > Can you send the relevant java code as well
> >
> > That's part of the problem -- we don't know what code is
> doing it, and we're
> > trying to narrow it down.
> >

Hmm, what if I took a really aggressive approach (with the developers
agreement of course) and told the backend to emit some message that could
cause the jdbc client to spit out an exception-- that would tell the
developers exactly where things were going wrong, wouldn't it?

If possible it would just give the client some message, but I suspect that
I'm actually going to have to exit() in order to force that exception-- any
ideas how to force one backend to exit without possibly messing up the
shared memory area?

-ron


Re: Logging function calls to figure out lo_close log entr

From
Dave Cramer
Date:
Ron,

I'm not sure how you would actually go about doing this, the driver s/b
throwing an exception at the invalid large object error anyway.

What is the system architecture, I am presuming this is a fairly large
system?

Dave
On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 18:54, Ron Snyder wrote:
>
>
> > That does make it tough ;)
> > On Wed, 2002-05-08 at 16:00, Ron Snyder wrote:
> > > > Can you send the relevant java code as well
> > >
> > > That's part of the problem -- we don't know what code is
> > doing it, and we're
> > > trying to narrow it down.
> > >
>
> Hmm, what if I took a really aggressive approach (with the developers
> agreement of course) and told the backend to emit some message that could
> cause the jdbc client to spit out an exception-- that would tell the
> developers exactly where things were going wrong, wouldn't it?
>
> If possible it would just give the client some message, but I suspect that
> I'm actually going to have to exit() in order to force that exception-- any
> ideas how to force one backend to exit without possibly messing up the
> shared memory area?
>
> -ron
>
>