On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Actually, the *real* problem with that coding is it lacks a SQLSTATE
>>> (errcode call). The only places where it's acceptable to leave that
>>> out are for internal "can't happen" cases, which this surely isn't.
>
>> Surrounding code also has ereports lacking SQLSTATE. And that isn't "can't
>> happen" case as well.
>> Should we consider fixing them?
>
> Yup. Just remember that the default is
> XX000 E ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR internal_error
>
> If that's not how you want the error case reported, you need an errcode()
> call.
>
> We might need more ERRCODEs than are there now, if none of the existing
> ones seem to fit these cases. There's already ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED
> and ERRCODE_INDEX_CORRUPTED; maybe we need ERRCODE_WAL_CORRUPTED, for
> example?
While I agree with that in general, we are taking about 2PC files that
are on disk in patch 0001, so I would think that in this case
ERRCODE_DATA_CORRUPTED is the most adapted (or
ERRCODE_TWOPHASE_CORRUPTED?).
The other WARNING messages refer to stale files of already committed
transactions, which are not actually corrupted. What about in this
case having a ERRCODE_TWOPHASE_INVALID?
Updated patches are attached, I did not change the WARNING portion
though as I am not sure what's the consensus on the matter.
--
Michael
