On 2015/11/07 3:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Amit Langote
> wrote:
>> On 2015-06-29 AM 11:36, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> How about the attached that adjusts errorcode for the error related to
>>> checking the flag bgw_flags in BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnec
On 7 November 2015 at 02:55, Robert Haas wrote:
> I wonder if we need to think about inventing some new error codes. I
> can sort of understand that "feature not supported" is something that
> can come in a large number of different contexts and mean pretty much
> the same all the time, but I'm
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Amit Langote
wrote:
> On 2015-06-29 AM 11:36, Amit Langote wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How about the attached that adjusts errorcode for the error related to
>> checking the flag bgw_flags in BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection*()
>> functions so that it matches the trea
On 2015-06-29 AM 11:36, Amit Langote wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How about the attached that adjusts errorcode for the error related to
> checking the flag bgw_flags in BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection*()
> functions so that it matches the treatment in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker()?
>
> s/ERRCODE_PROGRA
Hi,
How about the attached that adjusts errorcode for the error related to
checking the flag bgw_flags in BackgroundWorkerInitializeConnection*()
functions so that it matches the treatment in SanityCheckBackgroundWorker()?
s/ERRCODE_PROGRAM_LIMIT_EXCEEDED/ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE/g
There
