Re: Snapshot too old logging

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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