On Wednesday 15 December 2010 13:33:30 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> >> It sort of looks to me like the LOG_NO_CLIENT error flag and the
> >> silent_error_while_idle flag are trying to cooperate to get the effect
> >> of throwing an error without actually throwing an error. I'm
> >> wondering if it would be at all sensible to do that more directly by
> >> making ProcessInterrupts() call AbortCurrentTransaction() in this
> >> case.
> >
> > Hm. I think you want the normal server-side error logging continuing to
> > work.
>
> I was thinking we could get around that by doing elog(LOG), but I
> guess that doesn't quite work either since we don't know what
> client_min_messages is. Hrm...
I thought about doing that first. Btw, LOG_NO_CLIENT is just a more abstracted
way of what COMERROR did before...
> >> I'm not sure if this would work, or if it's better. I'm just throwing
> >> it out there, because the current approach looks a little grotty to
> >> me.
> >
> > I with you on the grotty aspect... On the other hand the whole code is
> > not exactly nice...
>
> Yeah. I'll try to find some time to think about this some more. It
> would sure be nice if we could find a solution that's a bit
> conceptually cleaner, even if it basically works the same way as what
> you've done here.
I would like that as well. I am not sure you can achieve that in a reasonable
amount of work. At least I couldn't.
Andres