| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2011-02-01 00:12:29 |
| Message-ID: | 11209.1296519149@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-02-01 00:13:42 | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-01 00:09:05 | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |