Re: Error code for "terminating connection due to conflict with recovery"
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.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: 2011-02-01T00:16:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.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. Seems a little weird to me, since the administrator hasn't done anything. It's the system that has decide to roll the transaction back, not the operator. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company