Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-08-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 now, except that Reason code is not marked for
translation, for the implementation reasons discussed downthread.

I'm looking forward to see how many of these we'll see in practice and
how users will react to them.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-29 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 current detail field, untranslated, like:
 
 Canceled on commit attempt with conflict in from prepared pivot.

Do you have an idea how to address this case:

@@ -3865,7 +3865,7 @@ CheckForSerializableConflictOut(bool visible, Relation 
relation,
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 errmsg(could not serialize access due to read/write 
dependencies among transactions),
-errdetail_internal(Canceled on conflict out to old 
pivot %u., xid),
+errdetail(Reason code: %s., canceled on conflict 
out to old pivot %u, xid),  // XXX bogus
  errhint(The transaction might succeed if retried.)));
 
if (SxactHasSummaryConflictIn(MySerializableXact)


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 code: %s
  HINT:  The transaction might succeed if retried.
  
  Where %s gets the current detail field, untranslated, like:
  
  Canceled on commit attempt with conflict in from prepared pivot.
 
 Do you have an idea how to address this case:

Call sprintf to expand the %u before ereport()?

 @@ -3865,7 +3865,7 @@ CheckForSerializableConflictOut(bool visible, Relation 
 relation,
 ereport(ERROR,
 (errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
  errmsg(could not serialize access due to read/write 
 dependencies among transactions),
 -errdetail_internal(Canceled on conflict out to old 
 pivot %u., xid),
 +errdetail(Reason code: %s., canceled on conflict 
 out to old pivot %u, xid),  // XXX bogus
   errhint(The transaction might succeed if retried.)));

-- 
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-29 Thread Tom Lane
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 sounds like way too much work for a wording improvement that is
exceedingly marginal in the first place.

IMO the only thing really wrong with those messages is that they aren't
complete sentences, which is a style guideline that we ought to try to
adhere to even if we're not bothering to translate them.  Perhaps
Transaction canceled because of ... would read better than Canceled
on ...?

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 1af37ec96d97722aeb527f5f43d6f6f2304f0861, not all of
these are strings that don't need to be translated.  For example, you
can't assume that the translation of %s: %s is %s: %s or that the
translation of %s (%x) is %s (%x).  I'll review those in detail when
I find some time, but some of them will probably have to be reverted.



-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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 translations would probably sound weird because
 there 
 isn't established terms for these things yet.
 
 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.

Yes, I think that would be better.  I will work on that.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-27 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 predicate.c use it or not doesn't affect that.
 
 Looking at commit 1af37ec96d97722aeb527f5f43d6f6f2304f0861, not all of
 these are strings that don't need to be translated.  For example, you
 can't assume that the translation of %s: %s is %s: %s or that the
 translation of %s (%x) is %s (%x).  I'll review those in detail when
 I find some time, but some of them will probably have to be reverted.

Hmm, if %s: %s has different uses in different places, we're going to
need a more involved solution because they might not translate
identically.

In any case, we need /* translator: */ comments to explain what's going
on.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-16 Thread Kevin Grittner
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
 adjustment, someone will need to point me in the right direction
 or cover that part separately.
 
 Well, the point is that this function *isn't* going to be known to
 the NLS code, so AFAICS no adjustments should be needed there.
 
That seemed likely, but not knowing the tools, I wasn't sure.
 
  You did miss some places that ought to be updated (mumble
 sources.sgml mumble)
 
Sorry I missed that; sources.sgml covered with the attached.
 
-Kevin




errdetail-internal-2.patch
Description: Binary data

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-16 Thread Tom Lane
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.

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-16 Thread Heikki Linnakangas

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
translators, so if that needs any corresponding adjustment, someone
will need to point me in the right direction or cover that part
separately.


Well, the point is that this function *isn't* going to be known to the
NLS code, so AFAICS no adjustments should be needed there.  You did miss
some places that ought to be updated (mumble sources.sgml mumble) but
unless I hear objections to the whole idea, I'll fix and apply this
tomorrow.


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 translations would probably sound weird because there 
isn't established terms for these things yet.


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 current detail field, untranslated, like:

Canceled on commit attempt with conflict in from prepared pivot.

Or perhaps shorten that to just conflict in from prepared pivot, as 
the fact that it happened on commit attempt should be clear from the 
context - the error happened at a COMMIT statement.


That would be similar to what we do with OS error messages, with %m. It 
would be more obvious that the untranslated message is some internal 
information that the user is not expect to understand, and that it is 
untranslated on purpose.


That's my 2c, anyway. I see you committed this already, I don't 
violently object to that either...


--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-16 Thread Tom Lane
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 see you committed this already, I don't 
 violently object to that either...

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.

I don't have a strong opinion about whether to do it like you suggest,
other than that the proposed wording doesn't meet the message style
guideline about detail messages being complete sentences.

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-15 Thread Kevin Grittner
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 memory conditions that could
 be moved to a DETAIL message.
 
Yes and no.  The resource which is exhausted at this point *is* in
shared memory, but its allocation of space is fixed at startup --
it's not competing with other users of shared memory for the shared
memory slush space.  I have some concern that an out of shared
memory message might confuse people on that aspect of the issue.
 
That said, if people find it helps more than it hurts, I have no
objection to a wording change.
 
 Canceled on identification as a pivot, during conflict out
   checking.
 Canceled on conflict out to old pivot %u.
 Canceled on identification as a pivot, with conflict out to
   old committed transaction %u.
 Canceled on conflict out to old pivot.
 Canceled on identification as a pivot, during conflict in
   checking.
 Canceled on identification as a pivot, during write.
 Canceled on conflict out to pivot %u, during read.
 Canceled on identification as a pivot, during commit attempt.
 Canceled on commit attempt with conflict in from prepared
   pivot.
 
 These are DETAIL messages, with the rest of the report saying
 
 ERROR:  could not serialize access due to read/write
   dependencies among transactions
 HINT:  The transaction might succeed if retried.
 
 AFAICT, the documentation doesn't mention anything about this
 pivot that keeps coming up.
 
Good point.  It's in the README-SSI and the Wiki page, but not in
the user docs; so using it in the error detail seems likely to
confuse.  Also, some of the information is referring to phases of
processing which can only be understood by looking at the source
code, like during conflict out checking.  While it might not be
entirely unreasonable to document what a pivot is, documenting some
of the other language is really out of the question.
 
 Is it useful that have the user face this information?  Is there
 anything a user can derive from seeing one of these messages
 versus another, and in addition to the error and hint, that would
 help them address the situation?
 
A user with a firm grasp of SSI might be better able to figure out
mitigation techniques for frequently occurring rollback scenarios
with that detail.
 
We did have one thread where someone was hoping for as much
information as we could provide, but I don't know how typical that
will be:
 
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-09/msg01133.php
 
I find the differentiation of causes helpful when working through
test cases, but moving this information to DEBUG messages might
satisfy that need.  I've also wondered whether that HINT line is
worthwhile.
 
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.
 
-Kevin

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-15 Thread Robert Haas
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 here or making it harder to get would be a mistake.  SSI 
is a complicated technology and we are likely to find that we need more 
debugging and instrumentation, not less.

...Robert
-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
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 confusing for users.

 I think removing info here or making it harder to get would be a mistake.

Agreed.  If we can clarify the messages, and/or make sure the
terminology they use is documented, that'd be a good thing; but let's
not just remove them.

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 message as a candidate for translation?

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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 message as a candidate for translation?

Yeah.  The other point is that translated versions of those phrases are
likely to introduce randomly diverging terms, which is not going to help
with debugging.  As long as the technology is new enough that a user is
going to need help from -hackers (or at least someone who read and
grokked README.SSI) to debug a problem, there's no benefit to
translating those errdetails.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-15 Thread Kevin Grittner
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 doesn't treat the message as a candidate for
 translation?
 
 Yeah.  The other point is that translated versions of those
 phrases are likely to introduce randomly diverging terms, which is
 not going to help with debugging.  As long as the technology is
 new enough that a user is going to need help from -hackers (or at
 least someone who read and grokked README.SSI) to debug a problem,
 there's no benefit to translating those errdetails.
 
OK, since that seems to be the consensus, I put a patch together. 
Testing it now.  Will post once I've confirmed it doesn't break
anything.
 
-Kevin

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-15 Thread Kevin Grittner
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 errmsg_internal, that works
 like errdetail but doesn't treat the message as a candidate for
 translation?
 
 Yeah.  The other point is that translated versions of those
 phrases are likely to introduce randomly diverging terms, which
 is not going to help with debugging.  As long as the technology
 is new enough that a user is going to need help from -hackers (or
 at least someone who read and grokked README.SSI) to debug a
 problem, there's no benefit to translating those errdetails.
  
 OK, since that seems to be the consensus, I put a patch together. 
 Testing it now.  Will post once I've confirmed it doesn't break
 anything.
 
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 adjustment, someone
will need to point me in the right direction or cover that part
separately.
 
The leading whitespace changes in predicate.c are from pgindent.
 
-Kevin

*** a/src/backend/storage/lmgr/predicate.c
--- b/src/backend/storage/lmgr/predicate.c
***
*** 3776,3782  CheckForSerializableConflictOut(bool visible, Relation 
relation,
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 errmsg(could not serialize access due to 
read/write dependencies among transactions),
!errdetail(Canceled on identification as a 
pivot, during conflict out checking.),
 errhint(The transaction might succeed if 
retried.)));
}
  
--- 3776,3782 
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 errmsg(could not serialize access due to 
read/write dependencies among transactions),
!errdetail_internal(Canceled on identification 
as a pivot, during conflict out checking.),
 errhint(The transaction might succeed if 
retried.)));
}
  
***
*** 3865,3871  CheckForSerializableConflictOut(bool visible, Relation 
relation,
ereport(ERROR,

(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 errmsg(could not serialize 
access due to read/write dependencies among transactions),
!   errdetail(Canceled on conflict out to old 
pivot %u., xid),
  errhint(The transaction might 
succeed if retried.)));
  
if (SxactHasSummaryConflictIn(MySerializableXact)
--- 3865,3871 
ereport(ERROR,

(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 errmsg(could not serialize 
access due to read/write dependencies among transactions),
!errdetail_internal(Canceled 
on conflict out to old pivot %u., xid),
  errhint(The transaction might 
succeed if retried.)));
  
if (SxactHasSummaryConflictIn(MySerializableXact)
***
*** 3873,3879  CheckForSerializableConflictOut(bool visible, Relation 
relation,
ereport(ERROR,

(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 errmsg(could not serialize 
access due to read/write dependencies among transactions),
!errdetail(Canceled on 
identification as a pivot, with conflict out to old committed transaction %u., 
xid),
  errhint(The transaction might 
succeed if retried.)));
  
MySerializableXact-flags |= 
SXACT_FLAG_SUMMARY_CONFLICT_OUT;
--- 3873,3879 
ereport(ERROR,

(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_SERIALIZATION_FAILURE),
 errmsg(could not serialize 
access due to read/write dependencies among transactions),
!errdetail_internal(Canceled 
on identification as a pivot, with conflict out to old committed transaction 
%u., xid),
  errhint(The transaction might 
succeed if retried.)));
  
  

Re: [HACKERS] SSI error messages

2011-07-15 Thread Tom Lane
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 corresponding adjustment, someone
 will need to point me in the right direction or cover that part
 separately.

Well, the point is that this function *isn't* going to be known to the
NLS code, so AFAICS no adjustments should be needed there.  You did miss
some places that ought to be updated (mumble sources.sgml mumble) but
unless I hear objections to the whole idea, I'll fix and apply this
tomorrow.

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers