From: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "m(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com" <m(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com" <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, "alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com" <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ildar(at)adjust(dot)com" <ildar(at)adjust(dot)com>, "horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com" <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp" <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Subject: | RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Date: | 2021-06-08 00:47:08 |
Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB29900A0699BEF09E554926D9FE379@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> I think we should not reinterpret the severity of the error and lower
> it. Especially, in this case, any kind of errors can be thrown. It
> could be such a serious error that FDW developer wants to report to
> the client. Do we lower even PANIC to a lower severity such as
> WARNING? That's definitely a bad idea. If we don’t lower PANIC whereas
> lowering ERROR (and FATAL) to WARNING, why do we regard only them as
> non-error?
Why does the client have to know the error on a remote server, whereas the global transaction itself is destined to commit?
FYI, the tx_commit() in the X/Open TX interface and the UserTransaction.commit() in JTA don't return such an error, IIRC. Do TX_FAIL and SystemException serve such a purpose? I don't feel like that.
[Tuxedo manual (Japanese)]
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/F25597_01/document/products/tuxedo/tux80j/atmi/rf3c91.htm
[JTA]
public interface javax.transaction.UserTransaction
public void commit()
throws RollbackException, HeuristicMixedException,
HeuristicRollbackException, SecurityException,
IllegalStateException, SystemException
Throws: RollbackException
Thrown to indicate that the transaction has been rolled back rather than committed.
Throws: HeuristicMixedException
Thrown to indicate that a heuristic decision was made and that some relevant updates have been
committed while others have been rolled back.
Throws: HeuristicRollbackException
Thrown to indicate that a heuristic decision was made and that all relevant updates have been rolled
back.
Throws: SecurityException
Thrown to indicate that the thread is not allowed to commit the transaction.
Throws: IllegalStateException
Thrown if the current thread is not associated with a transaction.
Throws: SystemException
Thrown if the transaction manager encounters an unexpected error condition.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-06-08 00:47:59 | Re: pgsql: Support parallel btree index builds. |
Previous Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2021-06-08 00:13:29 | Remove server and libpq support for the version 2 wire protocol |