Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com> wrote: >> Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> >>> Just for starters, a 40XXX error report will fail to provide the >>> duplicated key's value. This will be a functional regression, >> >> Not if, as is normally the case, the transaction is retried from >> the beginning on a serialization failure. Either the code will >> check for a duplicate (as in the case of the OP on this thread) and >> they won't see the error, *or* the the transaction which created >> the duplicate key will have committed before the start of the retry >> and you will get the duplicate key error. > > I'm not buying that; that argument assumes duplicate key errors are > always 'upsert' driven. Although OP's code may have checked for > duplicates it's perfectly reasonable (and in many cases preferable) to > force the transaction to fail and report the error directly back to > the application. The application will then switch on the error code > and decide what to do: retry for deadlock/serialization or abort for > data integrity error. IOW, the error handling semantics are > fundamentally different and should not be mixed.
I think you might be agreeing with me without realizing it. Right now you get "duplicate key error" even if the duplication is caused by a concurrent transaction -- it is not possible to check the error code (well, SQLSTATE, technically) to determine whether this is fundamentally a serialization problem. What we're talking about is returning the serialization failure return code for the cases where it is a concurrent transaction causing the failure and continuing to return the duplicate key error for all other cases. Either I'm not understanding what you wrote above, or you seem to be arguing for being able to distinguish between errors caused by concurrent transactions and those which aren't. -- Kevin GrittnerEDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
