On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> Also, AFAIK we don't *have* a "message type" at this point (one of >> the things said mythical project wanted to look at), so the only >> thing we could really filter on would be the whole text of the >> message, no? > > We have SQLSTATE, but this seems to be one of those situations where > we've been sloppy about using the right value. We seem to be using > '08P01' (protocol_violation), which is also used for finding the > wrong bytes on a working connection. It seems to me a broken > connection is exactly the case where you would expect to see '08006' > (connection_failure). FWIW, there are also specific exceptions for > rejecting a connection attempt, and for attempting to send something > when no connection exists. > > We don't need to invent new mechanisms for categorizing messages; we > just need to start consistently using the one we have correctly.
While it might work a bit for this one, do we really expect to be able to map a single SQLSTATE to each single message at any point? Unless we can do that, it's never going to "go all the way" - though it might still be useful of course. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
