I know it is late in the cycle, but I still think that the current behaviour
of ERRORing during execution of a query but FATALing during IDLE IN
TRANSACTION is very confusing to the user. Especially as you are not even able
to read the reason for getting disconnected because the client doesnt expect
input in that state...
The first patch adds the capability to add a flag to ereport like:
ereport(ERROR | LOG_NO_CLIENT)
Tom earlier suggested using COMERROR but thats just a version of LOG which
doesnt report to the client. The patch makes that to be a synonym of LOG |
While its not the most pretty API I dont think its that bad because the
directionality is somewhat a property of the loglevel. Beside it would
generate a lot of useless noise and breakage.
The second patch changes the FATAL during cancelling an idle in txn query into
ERROR | LOG_NO_CLIENT.
To avoid breaking the known state there also may no "ready for query" message
get sent. The patch ensures that by setting and checking a
That way the client will not see that an error occured until the next command
sent but I dont think there is a solution to that in 9.0 timeframe if at all.
The patch only adds that for the recovery conflict path for now.
What do you think? Is it worth applying something like that now? If yes I
would try to test the patch some more (obviously the patch survives the
regression tests, but they do not seem to check the extended query protocol at
One could argue that the LOG_NO_CLIENT flag should be added when a idle
transaction gets terminated by force but I wouldn't bother.
On a related note I would also like to get rid of the restriction that a
normal query cancellation will only be done if no subtransactions are stacked.
But I guess its too late for that? (I have a patch ready, some cleanup would
The latter works by:
- adding a explicit error code (which should be done regardless of this
- avoiding to catch such error at a few places (plperl, plpython)
- recursively aborting the subtransactions once the mainloop is reached
- relying on the fact that the cancellation signal will get resent
- possibly escalating to a FATAL if nothing happens after a certain number of
PS: I know I sort-of-promised a patch earlier, but it didn't work out time-
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2010-02-13 22:25:48|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL::PLPerl::Call - Simple interface for calling SQL functions from PostgreSQL PL/Perl|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2010-02-13 21:20:25|
|Subject: Re: knngist patch support|