Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1273.1296503907@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to
conflict with recovery"
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 11:24 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> , or to use a new >> error code. ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN is just strange. > It's not strange at all. It's the same error code as we use for all of > the other cases listed. We need that because it is the current > catch-all errcode for "cannot retry". > The purpose of errcodes is to allow programs to check them and then act. > It's pointless to add a new errcode that is so rare that nobody will > ever program for it because they won't expect it, let alone test for it. > Or at least won't assign any sensible priority to handling that error. The trouble with ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN is that it might lead a connection pooler to expect that *all* its connections are going bad, not just the ones that are connected to a specific database. I think this is a bad decision. Programs that are interested in testing for this case at all are likely to need to be worried about that distinction. Also, while I believe that ERRCODE_T_R_DEADLOCK_DETECTED is a reasonable catchall retry code, I don't think it's equally sane to think that ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN is a catchall non-retry code. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: