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? 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. 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). 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. I don't have good ideas on the cases for physical replication, as those seem quite different; we can consider those separately. Thoughts? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
