Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's an ugly attempt towards this. Though I'm unsure if we can change
the const on the PQerrorMessage parameter without messing with library
versions and such?
That's a bad idea in any case --- PQerrorMessage shouldn't be changing
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
Magnus Hagander wrote:
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
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here's an ugly attempt towards this. Though I'm unsure if we can change
the const on the PQerrorMessage parameter without messing with library
versions and such?
That's a bad idea in any case --- PQerrorMessage shouldn't be changing
the state of
I noticed while working on general fixes for the certificate handling
that if we have a connection being attempted with sslmode=prefer (which
happens to be our default), we will loose error messages.
Basically, if we fail the SSL connection, we will throw away the error
message and try a
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I noticed while working on general fixes for the certificate handling
that if we have a connection being attempted with sslmode=prefer (which
happens to be our default), we will loose error messages.
Yeah, this came up awhile ago. I don't see any easy
Tom Lane wrote:
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I noticed while working on general fixes for the certificate handling
that if we have a connection being attempted with sslmode=prefer (which
happens to be our default), we will loose error messages.
Yeah, this came up awhile ago. I
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
