On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <mag...@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/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
