Re: "unexpected EOF" messages
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-05-03T17:20:41Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> writes: > Would it make sense to use 08003 (connection_does_not_exist) when a > broken connection for an idle process is discovered, and 08006 > (connection_failure) for the "in transaction" failure? What about a > failure just after COMMIT and before successfully sending that > result to the client? I notice there's a SQLSTATE 08007 > (transaction_resolution_unknown), but I don't know whether that > makes sense on the server side, or just on the client side. AFAICS, all the 08 class is meant to be issued by client-side code, not the server. I think we probably have to use nonstandard SQLSTATEs for these messages. regards, tom lane