DongHyeonkaandClaude Opus 5
b2963105a8
The keycloak project ended with four open questions that design could not
settle. A two-VM lab was built to answer them by measurement, and this is
that material: 26 experiments, 125 raw command outputs, 22 browser captures.
Follows the import procedure in README.md.
source/ the originating repository verbatim — 78 documents, 28 SVGs,
8 manifests, plus .source-revision recording the commit
final/ the SSOT
document.md 729 lines written from the 29 experiment documents, not
concatenated: what was predicted, what was measured, and
where the measurement itself was wrong
evidence/raw 125 outputs, flattened to <experiment>__<file> because
the originals collided (01-baseline.txt appeared three
times) and the audit only globs the top level
evidence/meta one per raw file; command and exitCode are null and the
README says why rather than inventing them
evidence/browser 22 captures
assets/ three diagrams through techviz
.techviz/ their VizSpecs
A separate project rather than an addition to keycloak: the B-layer answers
that project's four questions, but the A, C and D layers are about cluster
failure, SSO and operations, and one document.md should hold one subject.
The four question records there can point here through 관계.
Recorded rather than papered over: only three of the 28 diagrams were
remade. The repository forbids hand-drawn SVG and forbids titles inside the
canvas; all 28 originals carry both, so converting them is redrawing, not
reformatting. They stay in source/ and the gap is written into the document.
verify-pipeline.py passes. audit-records.py reports no issues.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.1 KiB
kind, slug, title, topic, project, status, sourceRevision, rootTreeNode, evidenceCapturedOn, assets, evidence, source, module
| kind | slug | title | topic | project | status | sourceRevision | rootTreeNode | evidenceCapturedOn | assets | evidence | source | module | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CONCEPT | adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c35 | 40003이 UNKNOWN으로 강등되면서 조정 경로도 함께 사라진다 | state-machines-and-ownership | clean-architecture-backend-template | 게시 전 | 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916 | concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c35 | 2026-09-01 |
|
|
|
adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa |
40003이 UNKNOWN으로 강등되면서 조정 경로도 함께 사라진다
PostgreSqlFailureClassifier의 SQLSTATE 분류는 맞지만 PostgreSqlExceptionTranslator.translate()가 COMPLETION_UNKNOWN을 일반 UNKNOWN으로 강등한다.
본문
PostgreSqlFailureClassifier는 PostgreSQL SQLSTATE를 bounded FailureCategory로 분류한다. serialization failure, deadlock, lock-not-available, constraint family, timeout, connection failure, schema/data 문제를 문자열 메시지가 아니라 SQLSTATE/structured server field 기준으로 다루는 방향은 적절하다. constraint 이름도 server error field에서 꺼내 catalog로 번역하므로 localized message parsing에 의존하지 않는다.
PostgreSqlFailureClassifier 참조 위치
:::evidence key="adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c35" alt="코드베이스에서 PostgreSqlFailureClassifier 를 검색한 출력 11줄. 이 기록이 세는 참조가 그 출력에 그대로 보인다." caption="PostgreSqlFailureClassifier 코드베이스 검색 — 11줄 · exit 0" zoom="true" :::
번역기가 completionUnknown을 항상 false로 만든다
현재 PostgreSqlExceptionTranslator.translate()는 classifier 결과가 COMPLETION_UNKNOWN이어도 JpaFailureContext의 completionUnknown을 항상 false로 만들고, switch에서 COMPLETION_UNKNOWN을 UNKNOWN과 함께 일반 JpaPersistenceException(FailureCategory.UNKNOWN, ...)으로 강등한다. 직접 probe에서 SQLSTATE 40003은 다음처럼 변환됐다.
type=JpaPersistenceException
category=UNKNOWN
sqlState=40003
completionUnknown=false
retryable=false
조정 경로까지 함께 사라진다
여기서 단순 진단 정보만 사라지는 것이 아니다. 현재 DefaultJpaRetryPolicy는 TransactionCompletionUnknownException 또는 FailureCategory.COMPLETION_UNKNOWN을 가장 먼저 검사해 RECONCILE로 보낸다. 그런데 실제 translator를 통과시키면 그 분기에 닿지 못한다.
즉 재실행은 막지만, commit 결과를 확인해야 하는 reconciliation 경로도 잃는다. fail-closed라는 이유로 안전하다고 볼 수 없는 이유다. commit이 실제로 적용됐는지 알 수 없는 상태를 terminal failure로 바꾸면 caller는 설계된 recovery protocol을 실행할 근거를 잃는다.