On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I would make ERRCODE_DATABASE_DROPPED an Invalid Authorization error,
>>> rather than a Transaction Rollback code. So sqlstate 28P02
>> ISTM it should still be in class 40. There's nothing wrong with the
>> user's authorization; we've just decided to roll back the transaction
>> for our own purposes.
> I agree, 28 is a completely off-point category. But it wasn't in 40
> before, either --- we are talking about where it currently says
> ADMIN_SHUTDOWN, no? I'd vote for keeping it in class 57 (operator
> intervention), as that is both sensible and a minimal change from
> current behavior.
Seems a little weird to me, since the administrator hasn't done
anything. It's the system that has decide to roll the transaction
back, not the operator.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-02-01 00:17:12|
|Subject: Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict
|Previous:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2011-02-01 00:15:06|
|Subject: Issues with generate_series using integer boundaries|