On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> I think it would be better not to include either the snapshot or the >> >> block number, and just find some way to reword the error message so >> >> that it mentions which relation was involved without implying that all >> >> access to the relation would necessarily fail. For example: >> >> >> >> ERROR: snapshot too old >> >> DETAIL: One or more rows required by this query have already been >> >> removed from "%s". >> > >> > 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"?
I think I was suggesting: One or more rows required by this query may already have been removed from "%s". -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
