Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
> Regarding returning 0 instead of -1 for the parallel case, I think that
> follows. While doing some additional research, I noticed this return value
> was just added in December (commit 059de3c [0]). Before that, it
> apparently assumed that elevel >= ERROR. With that and your analysis of
> the call sites, it seems highly unlikely that changing it will cause any
> problems.
Hah ... so the failure to think clearly about which value to use
was mine :-(.
> For the errcode, I do see that we pretty consistently use
> ERRCODE_INVALID_TRANSACTION_STATE for "can't do thing during a parallel
> operation." In fact, it looks like all but one use is for parallel errors.
OK, I'll leave that alone but will change the return code.
regards, tom lane
