Re: 7.2.3 vacuum bug

From: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.2.3 vacuum bug
Date: 2002-10-31 16:33:23
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.33.0210310932330.4588-100000@css120.ihs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > Ok, fair enough -- I agree that we should treat the two cases
> > differently. But one thing I think we should do in any case is improve
> > the wording of the error message.
>
> Got a suggestion?

Change: RelationClearRelation: relation 25172 deleted while still in use
to: RelationClearRelation: a relation (id: 25172) was deleted while still
in use

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-10-31 16:50:46 elog(PANIC) should abort()?
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2002-10-31 16:15:31 Re: setuid for defaults, constraints and triggers (Was: