Horton

Re: "unexpected EOF" messages

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-05-03T16:46:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Well, nearby Tom and I discussed demoting the message to DEBUG1 when
> no transaction is in progress.  Presumably the two messages would
> share the same SQL state, unless we're going to create separate SQL
> states for connection-closed-not-in-a-txn and
> connection-closed-in-a-txn; and yet I think there's a very decent
> argument that you're much more likely to care about the latter than
> the former.

If we're going to treat the two cases differently then assigning
distinct SQLSTATEs seems entirely reasonable to me.

			regards, tom lane