| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, fgp(at)phlo(dot)org, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |
| Date: | 2011-01-31 21:24:55 |
| Message-ID: | 8518.1296509095@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-01-31 21:28:01 | Re: Spread checkpoint sync |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-31 21:20:43 | Re: SSI patch version 14 |