Re: Snapshot too old logging

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > 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".
> >
> > Just to be clear, you're suggesting 'One or more rows may have already
> been
> > removed from "%s"?
>
> Focusing on the relation itself for a second, I think the name should be
> schema-qualified. What about using errtable()?
>
> Can this happen for relation types other than tables, say materialized
> views? (Your suggested wording omits relation type so it wouldn't be
> affected, but it's worth considering I think.)
>

I'm fairly certain it can hit other things, including indexes and
definitely matviews, but I won't say I'm 100% sure :) The check is at block
level. Does errtable() work for that? (I've never used it, and it seems
it's only actually use din a single place in the codebase..)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/