Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-01-31 21:28:01
Subject: Re: Spread checkpoint sync
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2011-01-31 21:20:43
Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group