On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>>> Heh - we already used ERRCODE_CONNECTION_FAILURE on the errors in
>>> copy.c. Since COPY can only happen when there is a transaction
>>> (right?), I just changed those error messages for consistency.
>>
>> Agreed on changing the message texts to match, but I wonder whether
>> we ought not switch all those SQLSTATEs to something different. Per my
>> comment to Kevin, I think the whole 08 class is meant to be issued on
>> the client side. Maybe it's okay to conflate a server-detected
>> connection loss with client-detected loss, but I'm not convinced.
>
> Sure,that's a simple search and replace of course... If we can come to
> a decision about what codes to actually use. I'm not sure I have much
> input other than that I agree they need to be different :-)
Any further suggestoins for which codes to use? If not, I think I'm
going to commit the patch as I had it, because it's not any worse than
what we had before (but fixes the annoying messages), and we can
always revisit the actual errorcodes later.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/