From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking |
Date: | 2013-01-23 17:15:16 |
Message-ID: | 20130123171516.GD7048@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-01-23 11:58:28 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2013 10:12 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
>
> This error message change looks rather odd, and has my head spinning a bit:
>
> - errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE cannot be applied to
> the nullable side of an outer join")));
> + errmsg("SELECT FOR UPDATE/SHARE/KEY UPDATE/KEY SHARE
> cannot be applied to the nullable side of an outer join")))
>
> Can't we do better than that?
I don't really see how? I don't think listing only the current locklevel
really is an improvement and something like "SELECT ... FOR $locktype
cannot .." seem uncommon enough in pg error messages to be strange.
Now I aggree that listing all those locklevels isn't that nice, but I
don't really have a better idea.
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-23 17:37:09 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-01-23 16:58:28 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-23 17:19:08 | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-01-23 17:08:39 | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) |