On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I think this line of thinking is on the right track. The server >> should certainly not send back an immediate ERROR response, because >> that will definitely confuse the client. Of course, any subsequent >> commands will report ERRORs until the client rolls back. But it also >> seems highly desirable for the server to send some sort of immediate, >> asynchronous notification, so that a sufficiently smart client can >> immediately report the error back to the user or take such other >> action as it deems appropriate. > > If you must have that, send a NOTICE.
Ah ha! I missed that one. That's perfect. > I don't actually see the point > though. If the client was as smart and well-coded as all that, it > wouldn't be sitting on an open transaction in the first place. Think about an interactive client. It's not the client's fault that the user has chosen to begin a transaction and then sit there cogitating, but the client would like to let the user know right away that their current transaction is defunct. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
