On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> ... So this whole area is a minefield, and the only >>> attractive thing we can do is to try to reduce the number of errors that >>> can get thrown post-commit. We already, for example, do not treat >>> post-commit file unlink failures as ERROR, though we surely would prefer >>> to do that. > >> We could treated it as a lost-communication scenario. The appropriate >> recovery actions from the client's point of view are identical. > > I'd hardly rate that as an attractive option.
Well, the only other principled fix I can see is to add a new reponse along the lines of ERRORBUTITCOMMITTED, which does not seem attractive either, since all clients will have to be taught to understand it. -- 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
