| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Better way of dealing with pgstat wait timeout during buildfarm runs? |
| Date: | 2015-01-19 16:30:26 |
| Message-ID: | 20150119163026.GF23811@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-01-19 11:28:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2015-01-19 11:16:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Possibly we need to improve the wording of that error message then.
> >> When it was written, we really assumed that it was a can't-happen case
> >> and so didn't spend much effort on it. Perhaps it should become a
> >> translatable ereport phrased like "WARNING: using stale statistics
> >> instead of current ones because stats collector is not responding".
>
> > Yes, that seems like a good message improvement.
>
> > It's not like making it LOG makes the message invisible...
>
> Uh, yes it does. So far as the user is concerned anyway.
Sure, but the log isn't invisible. As mentioned one paragraph above, I
don't think it's likely to ever be noticed in the client code in the
cases where it happens in production.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-19 16:30:58 | Re: Re: Better way of dealing with pgstat wait timeout during buildfarm runs? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-01-19 16:28:41 | Re: Re: Better way of dealing with pgstat wait timeout during buildfarm runs? |