On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 9:52 AM shveta malik <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 9, 2026 at 7:07 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dear Amit, > > > > > > > Fair enough. Also, with the current approach, we don't need to repeat > > > > > the same LOG message ( > > > > > conflict (multiple_unique_conflicts) detected on relation > > > > > "public.conf_tab") again and again even though we do similar things at > > > > > other places[1] (the STATEMENT is repeated). If we have to follow your > > > > > advice then I can think of following formats: > > > ... > > > > > > As shown upthread, in existing places where we display the entire row, > > > we don't use columns, so doesn't see why we need to be different here. > > > I think but we can display for RI columns. > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. I've created the first draft based on the > > comment. > > > > While considering and implementing, I found that worker sometimes miss to > > read > > information for indexes and relations due to the missing permissions. > > Previous > > style just appended key/row/replica identity information at the bottom thus > > it > > had less impacts. > > However, it needs some branches if we tried to integrate into complete > > statements > > to avoid constructing sentences at run-time. > > > > E.g., if we have complete information, the output can be like: > > > > ``` > > Key (a) = (1) already exists in unique index "tab_pkey", modified in > > transaction 777: local row (1, 1). > > ``` > > > > But if the worker cannot read the content of the index, the statement > > should be slightly different like: > > > > ``` > > Unique index "tab_pkey" rejects applying due to local row (1, 1), modified > > in transaction 77. > > ``` > > > > How do you feel? This patch may need idea to reduce lines. > > > > I haven't looked at the code yet, but some initial thoughts while > looking at the output: > > 1) > DETAIL: Could not apply remote row (20, 10). > DETAIL: Could not apply remote row (40, 200) by using replica > identity (i)=(20). > > We generally "apply" in terms of insert, update, delete etc and not > rows. Do you think we shall have: > 'Could not apply remote change (20, 10)..' > > The most informative will be to say below, but since operation-type is > already mentioned in Context, mentioning it here might not be needed. > So we can say 'remote change'. > > DETAIL: Could not apply remote INSERT for row (30, 10). > DETAIL: Could not apply remote UPDATE for row (40, 200) using replica > identity (i)=(20). >
IIRC, the operation is already displayed in the context message. Here, we can say: DETAIL: Could not apply remote change using replica identity (i)=(20): remote row (40, 200). And adjust other messages accordingly. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
