From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | new "row-level lock" error messages |
Date: | 2013-07-16 01:26:20 |
Message-ID: | 1373937980.20441.8.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
In 9af4159f in combination with cb9b66d3 a bunch of error messages were
changed from something like
"SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE is not allowed with UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT"
to
"row-level locks are not allowed with UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT"
because the intermediate state of
"SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE/KEY UPDATE/KEY SHARE is not allowed with
UNION/INTERSECT/EXCEPT"
was presumably considered too bulky.
I think that went too far in some cases. For example, the new message
"row-level locks must specify unqualified relation names"
has little to do with its original meaning.
In general, I find these new wordings to be a loss of clarity. There is
no indication on the SELECT man page or in the documentation index what
a "row-level lock" is at all.
I would suggest that these changes be undone, except that the old
"SELECT FOR ..." be replaced by a dynamic string that reverse-parses the
LockingClause to provide the actual clause that was used.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit kapila | 2013-07-16 04:23:02 | Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters (RE: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-07-15 23:27:16 | Re: Proposal: template-ify (binary) extensions |