Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoCk8KfMwn0FVOc4e7q-dP=c-bg5qW0f8jn1rJGuM1VhQg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2  ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>)
Responses Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 9:47 AM tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
<tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.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?

It's not necessarily on a remote server. It could be a problem with
the local server.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: SSL SNI
Next
From: Ajin Cherian
Date:
Subject: Re: Decoding of two-phase xacts missing from CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT command