On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 5:59 PM tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
<tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
> > On Fri, Jun 4, 2021 at 5:04 PM tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
> > <tsunakawa.takay@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/