On lör, 2011-07-16 at 21:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think I would prefer something like this:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies
among
transactions
DETAIL: Reason code: %s
HINT: The transaction might succeed if retried.
I've done it this way
On lör, 2011-07-16 at 21:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think I would prefer something like this:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies
among
transactions
DETAIL: Reason code: %s
HINT: The transaction might succeed if retried.
Where %s gets the
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of vie jul 29 14:46:20 -0400 2011:
On lör, 2011-07-16 at 21:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I think I would prefer something like this:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies
among
transactions
DETAIL: Reason
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of vie jul 29 14:46:20 -0400 2011:
On lör, 2011-07-16 at 21:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Do you have an idea how to address this case:
Call sprintf to expand the %u before ereport()?
That
On lör, 2011-07-16 at 15:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, as I mentioned in the commit message, I've thought for some time
that there were use cases for errdetail_internal. Whether these
particular places in predicate.c use it or not doesn't affect that.
Looking at commit
On lör, 2011-07-16 at 21:55 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
I find it strange to simply leave those strings untranslated. It's
going
to look wrong, like someone just forgot to translate them. However, I
agree it's perhaps a bit too much detail to translate all of those
messages, and the
Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mié jul 27 16:19:22 -0400 2011:
On lör, 2011-07-16 at 15:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Well, as I mentioned in the commit message, I've thought for some time
that there were use cases for errdetail_internal. Whether these
particular places in
Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner writes:
OK, after getting distracted by test failures caused by an
unrelated commit, I've confirmed that this passes my usual tests.
I don't know anything about the tools used for extracting the text
for the translators, so if that needs any corresponding
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
You did miss some places that ought to be updated (mumble
sources.sgml mumble)
Sorry I missed that; sources.sgml covered with the attached.
Oh, I'd already fixed that locally, but thanks. Patch is committed now.
On 16.07.2011 03:14, Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittnerkevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
OK, after getting distracted by test failures caused by an unrelated
commit, I've confirmed that this passes my usual tests. I don't
know anything about the tools used for extracting the text for the
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com writes:
I think I would prefer something like this:
ERROR: could not serialize access due to read/write dependencies among
transactions
DETAIL: Reason code: %s
HINT: The transaction might succeed if retried.
That's my 2c, anyway. I
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
Some of these new error messages from the SSI code are a mouthful:
not enough elements in RWConflictPool to record a rw-conflict
not enough elements in RWConflictPool to record a potential
rw-conflict
These are basically out of shared
On Jul 15, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
wrote:
I have a suspicion that we might sometimes find the information
conveyed by the detail useful when responding to users with
questions; but the language as it stands seems confusing for users.
I think removing info
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Jul 15, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov
wrote:
I have a suspicion that we might sometimes find the information
conveyed by the detail useful when responding to users with
questions; but the language as it stands seems
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of vie jul 15 14:33:34 -0400 2011:
I think that Peter's real concern is whether these are worth
translating, and I share that doubt. Perhaps we should invent an
errdetail_internal, parallel to errmsg_internal, that works like
errdetail but doesn't treat the
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message:
I think that Peter's real concern is whether these are worth
translating, and I share that doubt. Perhaps we should invent an
errdetail_internal, parallel to errmsg_internal, that works like
errdetail but
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message:
I think that Peter's real concern is whether these are worth
translating, and I share that doubt. Perhaps we should invent
an errdetail_internal, parallel to
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
OK, after getting distracted by test failures caused by an unrelated
commit, I've confirmed that this passes my usual tests. I don't
know anything about the tools used for extracting the text for the
translators, so if that needs any
Some of these new error messages from the SSI code are a mouthful:
not enough elements in RWConflictPool to record a rw-conflict
not enough elements in RWConflictPool to record a potential rw-conflict
These are basically out of shared memory conditions that could be
moved to a DETAIL
19 matches
Mail list logo
