On Wednesday 15 December 2010 13:33:30 Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:13 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> It sort of looks to me like the LOG_NO_CLIENT error flag and the > >> silent_error_while_idle flag are trying to cooperate to get the effect > >> of throwing an error without actually throwing an error. I'm > >> wondering if it would be at all sensible to do that more directly by > >> making ProcessInterrupts() call AbortCurrentTransaction() in this > >> case. > > > > Hm. I think you want the normal server-side error logging continuing to > > work. > > I was thinking we could get around that by doing elog(LOG), but I > guess that doesn't quite work either since we don't know what > client_min_messages is. Hrm... I thought about doing that first. Btw, LOG_NO_CLIENT is just a more abstracted way of what COMERROR did before...
> >> I'm not sure if this would work, or if it's better. I'm just throwing > >> it out there, because the current approach looks a little grotty to > >> me. > > > > I with you on the grotty aspect... On the other hand the whole code is > > not exactly nice... > > Yeah. I'll try to find some time to think about this some more. It > would sure be nice if we could find a solution that's a bit > conceptually cleaner, even if it basically works the same way as what > you've done here. I would like that as well. I am not sure you can achieve that in a reasonable amount of work. At least I couldn't. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
