On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > >> Is there a reason why we don't log which relation triggered the > snapshot too > >> old error when it happens? > > > I would probably not want to mess with the text of the error > > itself, in case any client-side software bases recovery on that > > rather than the SQLSTATE value; > > Any such code is broken on its face because of localization. > Perhaps including the relname in the main message would make it > unduly long, but if not I'd vote for doing it that way. > > Agreed. Is there value in showing which snapshot as well? Something like: DETAIL: snapshot <xyz> is too old to access relation <relation> Putting both those into the main message will probably make it too long. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
