Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> To achieve the effect Fujii is looking for, we would have to silently drop
>> the connection. That would correctly leave the client not knowing whether
>> the transaction committed or not.
> Yeah, this seems to make more sense.
It was pointed out that sending an ERROR would not do because it would
likely lead to client code assuming the transaction failed, which might
or might not be the case. But maybe we could send a WARNING and then
close the connection? That would give humans a clue what had happened,
but not do anything to the state of automated clients.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
