Dear Nagata-san, Ikeda-san, > > In my opinion, when the --continue-on-error option is enabled, pgbench > > clients does not need to start new transactions after network errors and > > other errors except for SQL-level errors. > > +1 > > I agree that --continue-on-error prevents pgbench from terminating only when > SQL-level errors occur, and does not change the behavior in the case of other > types of errors, including network errors.
OK, so let's do like that. BTW, initially we were discussing the combination of --continue-on-error and --exit-on-abort. What it the conclusion? I feel the Nagata-san's point [1] is valid in this approach. > > > As I understand it, the proposed --continue-on-error option does not > > > retry the transaction > > > in any case; it simply gives up on the transaction. That is, when an > > > SQL-level error occurs, > > > the transaction is reported as "failed" rather than "retried", and the > > > random state is discarded. > > > > Retrying the failed transaction is not necessary when the transaction > > failed due to SQL-level errors. Unlike real-world applications, pgbench > > does not need to complete specific transaction successfully. In the case > > of unique constraint violations, retrying the same transaction will > > likely to result in the same error again. I intended here that clients could throw away the failed transaction and start new one again in the case. I hope we are on the same page... [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20250614002453.5c72f2ec80864d840150a642%40sraoss.co.jp Best regards, Hayato Kuroda FUJITSU LIMITED
