On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 12:14 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2025 at 11:39 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 7:14 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I was reviewing the code for conflict reporting and became curious > > > about the choice of ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE. This error code > > > typically signifies a serialization failure within a transaction under > > > serializable isolation, so its use here for a different type of > > > conflict seems somewhat out of place. I did notice its use in other > > > contexts for recovery conflicts in physical replication, which also > > > struck me as a bit unusual. > > > > > > Given these observations, I'm wondering if it would be more > > > appropriate to introduce a new, more specific error code for this > > > purpose? > > > > > > > Can we instead try to use other suitable existing error codes? > > Yeah we can try to do that as well. > > > CT_UPDATE_ORIGIN_DIFFERS, CT_DELETE_ORIGIN_DIFFERS → > > ERRCODE_TRIGGERED_DATA_CHANGE_VIOLATION (27000) > > These represent cases where the row exists but differs from the > > expected state, conceptually similar to a triggered data change > > invalidating the operation. > > Yeah this looks much better than what we already have. > > > I have also considered using ERRCODE_TRIGGERED_ACTION_EXCEPTION for > > the above, but that sounds to be fit for a generic error that occurs > > during the execution of a triggered action (e.g., a BEFORE or AFTER > > trigger). > > Right > > > CT_UPDATE_MISSING, CT_DELETE_MISSING → ERRCODE_NO_DATA_FOUND (02000) > > These are straightforward cases where the target row is missing, > > aligning well with the standard meaning of 02000. > > Yeah this looks good. > > > I don't have good ideas on the cases for physical replication, as > > those seem quite different; we can consider those separately. > > Yeah we can do that separately, maybe I put more thought on that and > send my proposal. > > > Thoughts? > > Okay I will put more thought about the proposed error code and also > see what others have to say and if we have a consensus I can provide > the patch.
After reviewing other error codes, these appear to be the most relevant in this context. PFA patch for the same, I will analyze the error code in physical replication recovery conflict and propose what is relevant there in a separate patch. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar Google
0001-Improve-error-codes-for-logical-replication-conflict.patch
Description: Binary data
