From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: display offset along with block number in vacuum errors |
Date: | 2020-08-20 07:02:18 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KXFsWkRLU9yzYYQyPz9mLUkYV8rscKJJJW_0_ibNgfoA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 12:18 PM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:01, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 12:54 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Here, we can notice that for the index, we are getting context
> > information but not for the heap. The reason is that in
> > vacuum_error_callback, we are not printing additional information for
> > phases VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_SCAN_HEAP and VACUUM_ERRCB_PHASE_VACUUM_HEAP
> > when block number is invalid. If we want to cover the 'info' messages
> > then won't it be better if we print a message in those phases even
> > block number is invalid (something like 'while scanning relation
> > \"%s.%s\"")
>
> Yeah, there is an inconsistency. I agree to print the message even
> when the block number is invalid.
>
Okay, I will update this and send this patch and rebased patch to
display offsets later today or tomorrow.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-08-20 07:36:08 | Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-08-20 06:47:40 | Re: display offset along with block number in vacuum errors |