Re: Snapshot too old logging

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 20:23:29
Message-ID: 20161115202329.vwod4zjuozzxcdni@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.)

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brad DeJong 2016-11-15 20:23:43 Re: Snapshot too old logging
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-11-15 19:28:02 Re: Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376)