Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoCk8KfMwn0FVOc4e7q-dP=c-bg5qW0f8jn1rJGuM1VhQg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 9:47 AM tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> > > I think we should not reinterpret the severity of the error and lower > > it. Especially, in this case, any kind of errors can be thrown. It > > could be such a serious error that FDW developer wants to report to > > the client. Do we lower even PANIC to a lower severity such as > > WARNING? That's definitely a bad idea. If we don’t lower PANIC whereas > > lowering ERROR (and FATAL) to WARNING, why do we regard only them as > > non-error? > > Why does the client have to know the error on a remote server, whereas the global transaction itself is destined to commit? It's not necessarily on a remote server. It could be a problem with the local server. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: