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>
55 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
55 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
kind: CONCEPT
|
|
slug: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c35
|
|
title: 40003이 UNKNOWN으로 강등되면서 조정 경로도 함께 사라진다
|
|
topic: state-machines-and-ownership
|
|
project: clean-architecture-backend-template
|
|
status: 게시 전
|
|
sourceRevision: 21234e38cdb9a926cbc92bb97a2aee2e4a7d2916
|
|
rootTreeNode: concept:adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c35
|
|
evidenceCapturedOn: 2026-09-01
|
|
assets:
|
|
- key: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c35
|
|
file: ../../../final/evidence/rendered/adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c35.svg
|
|
evidence:
|
|
- ../../../final/evidence/raw/adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa-c35.txt
|
|
source:
|
|
- 원본 분석 절은 analysis/05-adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa.md#L2632 이다.
|
|
module: adapter-outbound-persistence-jpa
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# 40003이 UNKNOWN으로 강등되면서 조정 경로도 함께 사라진다
|
|
|
|
`PostgreSqlFailureClassifier`의 SQLSTATE 분류는 맞지만 `PostgreSqlExceptionTranslator.translate()`가 `COMPLETION_UNKNOWN`을 일반 `UNKNOWN`으로 강등한다.
|
|
|
|
## 본문
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:start -->
|
|
|
|
`PostgreSqlFailureClassifier`는 PostgreSQL SQLSTATE를 bounded `FailureCategory`로 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_UNKNOWN`이어도 `JpaFailureContext`의 `completionUnknown`을 항상 `false`로 만들고, switch에서 `COMPLETION_UNKNOWN`을 `UNKNOWN`과 함께 일반 `JpaPersistenceException(FailureCategory.UNKNOWN, ...)`으로 강등한다. 직접 probe에서 SQLSTATE `40003`은 다음처럼 변환됐다.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
type=JpaPersistenceException
|
|
category=UNKNOWN
|
|
sqlState=40003
|
|
completionUnknown=false
|
|
retryable=false
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 조정 경로까지 함께 사라진다
|
|
|
|
여기서 단순 진단 정보만 사라지는 것이 아니다. 현재 `DefaultJpaRetryPolicy`는 `TransactionCompletionUnknownException` 또는 `FailureCategory.COMPLETION_UNKNOWN`을 가장 먼저 검사해 `RECONCILE`로 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.
|
|
|
|
<!-- body:end -->
|