From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Snapshot too old logging |
Date: | 2016-11-15 19:22:55 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZWk7zm_XqzDyd_2ziWMALWdhuGFnF237tbs444XUTumA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be better not to include either the snapshot or the
>> block number, and just find some way to reword the error message so
>> that it mentions which relation was involved without implying that all
>> access to the relation would necessarily fail. For example:
>>
>> ERROR: snapshot too old
>> DETAIL: One or more rows required by this query have already been
>> removed from "%s".
>
> That particular language would be misleading. All we know about
> the page is that it was modified since the referencing (old)
> snapshot was taken. We don't don't know in what way it was
> modified, so we must assume that it *might* have been pruned of
> rows that the snapshot should still be able to see.
Oh, yeah. So maybe "may have already been removed".
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-11-15 19:24:29 | Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-11-15 19:21:59 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |