| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| 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 16:28:41 |
| Message-ID: | 27599.1421684921@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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. The entire
point of this discussion is to prevent the message from showing up in
buildfarm output, remember?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-01-19 16:30:26 | Re: Re: Better way of dealing with pgstat wait timeout during buildfarm runs? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-01-19 16:27:51 | Re: Re: Better way of dealing with pgstat wait timeout during buildfarm runs? |