On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 8:09 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 11:58 PM David G. Johnston > <david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 7:47 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Yeah, I think it's a good idea to clear the subskipxid after the first > >> transaction regardless of whether the worker skipped it. > >> > > > > So basically instead of stopping the worker with an error you suggest > having the worker continue applying changes (after resetting subskipxid, > and - arguably - the ?_error_* fields). Log the transaction xid mis-match > as a warning in the log file as opposed to an error. > > Agreed, I think it's better to log a warning than to raise an error. > In the case where the user specified the wrong XID, the worker should > fail again due to the same error. > > If it remains possible for the system to accept a wrongly specified XID I would agree that this behavior is preferable. At least when the user wonders why the skip didn't work and they are seeing the same error again they will have a log entry warning telling them their XID choice was incorrect. I would prefer that the system not accept a wrongly specified XID and the user be told directly and sooner that their XID choice was incorrect. David J.
