Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, fgp@phlo.org, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2011-01-31T21:24:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 14:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> The trouble with ERRCODE_ADMIN_SHUTDOWN is that it might lead a >> connection pooler to expect that *all* its connections are going bad, >> not just the ones that are connected to a specific database. I think >> this is a bad decision. Programs that are interested in testing for this >> case at all are likely to need to be worried about that distinction. > That's a reasonable argument. > My objection to a new code is only to one that is so specific that > people have to program for ERRCODE_BLUE_MOON_ON_A_LEAP_YEAR. What's wrong with ERRCODE_DATABASE_DROPPED, or something like that? > Can we invent a new "catch-all" that might be used here? Something that > means "unknown operational error, not sure what to do". Because that's not the situation here. We know exactly what a pooler should do. It might be an infrequent case, but obscurantism isn't going to help anyone. regards, tom lane