Re: "unexpected EOF" messages

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, nearby Tom and I discussed demoting the message to DEBUG1 when
> no transaction is in progress.  Presumably the two messages would
> share the same SQL state, unless we're going to create separate SQL
> states for connection-closed-not-in-a-txn and
> connection-closed-in-a-txn; and yet I think there's a very decent
> argument that you're much more likely to care about the latter than
> the former.

If we're going to treat the two cases differently then assigning
distinct SQLSTATEs seems entirely reasonable to me.
        regards, tom lane