| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSI error messages |
| Date: | 2011-07-16 19:01:23 |
| Message-ID: | 19770.1310842883@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-16 19:09:21 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-16 18:55:46 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |