From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQLSTATE for replication connection failures |
Date: | 2021-06-14 09:17:44 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KY1L2YGoup_ANw0Q9ctmLMVJS=Po-pb8pm9xDeokc1AA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 9:12 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> So far as I can find, just about everyplace that deals with replication
> connections has slipshod error reporting. An example from worker.c is
>
> LogRepWorkerWalRcvConn = walrcv_connect(MySubscription->conninfo, true,
> MySubscription->name, &err);
> if (LogRepWorkerWalRcvConn == NULL)
> ereport(ERROR,
> (errmsg("could not connect to the publisher: %s", err)));
>
> Because of the lack of any errcode() call, this failure will be reported
> as XX000 ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR, which is surely not appropriate.
> worker.c is in good company though, because EVERY caller of walrcv_connect
> is equally slipshod.
>
> Shall we just use ERRCODE_CONNECTION_FAILURE for these failures, or
> would it be better to invent another SQLSTATE code? Arguably,
> ERRCODE_CONNECTION_FAILURE is meant for failures of client connections;
> but on the other hand, a replication connection is a sort of client.
>
Your reasoning sounds good to me. So, +1 for using ERRCODE_CONNECTION_FAILURE.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-06-14 09:30:14 | Re: pgbench bug candidate: negative "initial connection time" |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2021-06-14 08:57:07 | Re: Fix around conn_duration in pgbench |