On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 08:27 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 13:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> 2. If a query cancel interrupt is received (pg_cancel_backend or ^C), >> >> then cancel the sync rep wait and issue a warning before acknowledging >> >> the commit. >> > >> > When I saw this commit, I noticed that the WARNING doesn't have an >> > errcode(). It seems like it should -- this is the kind of thing that the >> > client is likely to care about, and may want to handle specially. >> >> Should I invent ERRCODE_WARNING_TRANSACTION_NOT_REPLICATED? > > I think it's reasonable to invent a new code here. Perhaps use the word > "synchronous" rather than "replicated", though?
I think we have to, because it's definitely not the same situation that someone would expect after ERRCODE_QUERY_CANCELLED. But ERRCODE_WARNING_TRANSACTION_NOT_SYNCHRONOUS, which is what I read you reply as suggesting, seems pretty wonky. I wouldn't know what that meant. Another option might be: ERRCODE_(WARNING_?)REPLICATION_WAIT_CANCELLED ...which might have something to recommend it. Other thoughts? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers