Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 14:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
> That's a reasonable argument.
> My objection to a new code is only to one that is so specific that
> people have to program for ERRCODE_BLUE_MOON_ON_A_LEAP_YEAR.
What's wrong with ERRCODE_DATABASE_DROPPED, or something like that?
> Can we invent a new "catch-all" that might be used here? Something that
> means "unknown operational error, not sure what to do".
Because that's not the situation here. We know exactly what a pooler
should do. It might be an infrequent case, but obscurantism isn't going
to help anyone.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-31 21:28:01|
|Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync |
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-01-31 21:20:43|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14|