From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Question on error code selection in conflict detection |
Date: | 2025-06-09 19:55:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaoWmD3pkgaO7BJCpfEOrvDz6trfT27DmUaQpEJ26ktCw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 9:45 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I was reviewing the code for conflict reporting and became curious
> about the choice of ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE. This error code
> typically signifies a serialization failure within a transaction under
> serializable isolation, so its use here for a different type of
> conflict seems somewhat out of place. I did notice its use in other
> contexts for recovery conflicts in physical replication, which also
> struck me as a bit unusual.
>
> Given these observations, I'm wondering if it would be more
> appropriate to introduce a new, more specific error code for this
> purpose?
Makes sense to me. I'm not sure if we should use a new error code or
some other existing one, but conflating other things with serializable
failures seems like a bad plan.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitrios Apostolou | 2025-06-09 20:08:29 | Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward |
Previous Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2025-06-09 19:48:49 | Re: pg_rewind: Doc update for PostgreSQL 18 |