On 27 April 2013 20:12, Robert Haas wrote:
> My feeling is that it would be better not to back-patch this, but just
> fix it in master. Given the present uses of COPY-BOTH mode, the
> problems seem to be limited to bad error messages, so it's arguably
> not a critical bug fix. Also, I think tha
On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 27 April 2013 03:22, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It seems the backend and libpq don't agree. The backend makes no
>> special provision to wait for a CopyDone message if an error occurs
>> during copy-both. It simply sends an ErrorResponse and t
Simon Riggs writes:
> libpq updates are much harder to roll out, so it would be better to
> assume that it is correct and the backend is wrong if we want to
> backpatch the fix.
I don't think that's a particularly sound argument.
If we view this as a protocol definitional issue, which it is, the
On 27 April 2013 03:22, Robert Haas wrote:
> It seems the backend and libpq don't agree. The backend makes no
> special provision to wait for a CopyDone message if an error occurs
> during copy-both. It simply sends an ErrorResponse and that's it.
> libpq, on the other hand, treats either CopyD
It seems the backend and libpq don't agree. The backend makes no
special provision to wait for a CopyDone message if an error occurs
during copy-both. It simply sends an ErrorResponse and that's it.
libpq, on the other hand, treats either CopyDone or ErrorResponse as a
cue to transition to PGASYN
