On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 5:59 PM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com <tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 5:04 PM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com > > <tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > Why does the user have to get an error? Once the local transaction has > > > been > > prepared, which means all remote ones also have been prepared, the whole > > transaction is determined to commit. So, the user doesn't have to receive > > an > > error as long as the local node is alive. > > > > I think we should neither ignore the error thrown by FDW code nor > > lower the error level (e.g., ERROR to WARNING). > > Why? (Forgive me for asking relentlessly... by imagining me as a cute > 7-year-old boy/girl asking "Why Dad?")
I think we should not reinterpret the severity of the error and lower it. Especially, in this case, any kind of errors can be thrown. It could be such a serious error that FDW developer wants to report to the client. Do we lower even PANIC to a lower severity such as WARNING? That's definitely a bad idea. If we don’t lower PANIC whereas lowering ERROR (and FATAL) to WARNING, why do we regard only them as non-error? Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
