Hi,
On 2023-11-30 16:02:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Wondering if we should add a ERRCODE_CLUSTER_CORRUPTED for cases like this. We
> > have ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED and ERRCODE_INDEX_CORRUPTED, which make
> > ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED feel a bit too specific in this kind of situation?
>
> Maybe. We didn't officially define DATA_CORRUPTED as referring to
> table data, but given the existence of INDEX_CORRUPTED maybe we
> should treat it as that.
I'm on the fence about it. Certainly DATA_CORRUPTED would be more appropriate
than INTERNAL_ERROR.
> > Hm, this one arguably is not corruption, but we still cannot
> > continue. ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE or maybe a new error code?
>
> ... I don't really like turning a whole bunch of error cases into
> the same error code without some closer analysis.
Other than this instance, they all indicate that the cluster is toast in some
way or another. So *_CORRUPTED seems appropriate. And even this instance would
be better off as _CORRUPTED than as INTERNAL_ERROR. There's so many of the
latter that you can't realistically alert on them occurring.
I don't like my idea of ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE much, that's
not something you realistically can alert on, and this error certainly is an
instance of "you're screwed until you manually intervene".
Greetings,
Andres Freund
