Re: SSI error messages

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kevin(dot)grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SSI error messages
Date: 2011-07-29 19:26:37
Message-ID: 1311967563-sup-6222@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-07-29 19:32:10 Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
Previous Message Greg Smith 2011-07-29 19:03:06 Re: Incremental checkopints