| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery" |
| Date: | 2011-01-14 15:53:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20110115.005303.397930884272255413.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Review:
>
> The only possible point of concern I see here is the naming of the C
> identifier. Everything else in class 40 uses ERRCODE_T_R_whatever,
> with T_R standing for transaction rollback. It's not obvious to me
> that that convention has any real value, but perhaps we ought to
> follow it here for the sake of consistency?
Yeah. Actually at first I used "T_R" convention. After a few seconds
thought, I realized that "T_R" is not appropreate by the same reason
you feel. Possible other argument might be "Terminating connection
always involves transaction rollback. So using T_R is ok". I'm not
sure this argument is reasonable enough though.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-01-14 16:22:21 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-01-14 15:32:05 | Re: kill -KILL: What happens? |