On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> w > > We could either endlessly repeat this >> >> ERROR: current transaction is aborted because of conflict with >> recovery, commands ignored until end of transaction block >> > > +1 for this option. > > > I'm also not sure why we would want to single out Hot Standby to >> generate the reason "because of conflict with recovery" when no other >> ERROR source would generate such a reason. >> > > Well, most times when the transaction is aborted, it's because you did > something wrong. Or at least, the failure is associated with some > particular statement. > > If we have other events that can asynchronously roll back a transaction, I > would think they would deserve similar handling. Off the top of my head, > I'm not sure if there are any such cases. > > Why not do the finger pointing (to HS) in the DETAIL field of the ERROR, and let the error message remain the same. Best regards, -- gurjeet.singh @ EnterpriseDB - The Enterprise Postgres Company http://www.enterprisedb.com singh.gurj...@{ gmail | yahoo }.com Twitter/Skype: singh_gurjeet Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device
