| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: COPY FREEZE has no warning |
| Date: | 2013-02-02 19:27:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20130202192724.GB19169@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:12:54AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 09:51:13AM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> > Let's touch on the exception in passing by using the phrase "last truncated",
> > giving this wording for both the second and the third COPY FREEZE error sites:
> >
> > cannot perform FREEZE because the table was not created or last
> > truncated in the current subtransaction
>
> Well, so you are saying that there really isn't any use-visible logic
> for those messages to be different, i.e. that the transaction id can be
> set to invalid even if we created/truncated in the same transaction, but
> not the same subtransaction?
Right. The latest committed code makes sense to me.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-02-02 19:54:10 | Re: autovacuum not prioritising for-wraparound tables |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-02-02 18:55:31 | pgsql: Mark vacuum_defer_cleanup_age as PGC_POSTMASTER. |