On Wednesday 13 January 2010 00:07:53 Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 19:43 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > On Tuesday 12 January 2010 09:40:03 Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 06:30 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > Currently the patch does not yet do anything to avoid letting the > > > > protocol out of sync. What do you think about adding a flag for error > > > > codes not to communicate with the client (Similarly to COMERROR)? > > > > > > > > So that one could do an elog(ERROR & ERROR_NO_SEND_CLIENT, .. or > > > > such? > > > > > > Seems fairly important piece. > > > > Do you aggree on the approach then? Do you want to do it? > > If you would like to prototype something on this issue it would be > gratefully received. I will review when submitted, though I may need > other review also. Will do - likely not before Saturday though.
> I'm still reworking other code, so things might change under you, though > not deliberately so. I will post as soon as I can, which isn't yet. No problem. Readapting a relatively minor amount of code isnt that hard. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
