Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Maybe the answer is to not throw away the first error message? But >>> presenting both messages could be confusing too. > >> Do we have the infrastructure to report more than one error? I thought >> we didn't... > > I was thinking of merging the reports into a single PGresult. The > tricky part is to figure out how to present it, and also when to throw > away one of the two reports --- if one is obviously bogus you don't want > to distract the user with it.
Um, PGresult? These errors occur on connection, so it needs to go in PGconn. I guess the easy way would be to just append the error reports with a \n between them. I think it would be good to keep both error messages in *all* cases. If the second connection succeeds, you will not get the error condition anyway, and thus not look at the error message from the first one. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
