| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ma Xueting <ma(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Report no unpinned buffers as insufficient resources |
| Date: | 2026-10-15 01:13:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwELckpz_Ek5ASO0EhDDNgmq3P=zMv=x4fqJJ1MiAA5PJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 24, 2026 at 2:26 PM Ma Xueting <ma(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> The analogous local-buffer error, "no empty local buffer available",
> is already reported using ERRCODE_INSUFFICIENT_RESOURCES.
Isn't it better to add "shared" to the error message to clarify which buffers
are involved, as the local-buffer message does?
For example, "no unpinned shared buffers available" or
"could not find an unpinned shared buffer".
BTW, I prefer the latter because "could not" describes the failed attempt
more clearly. If we adopt this, for consistency, it might be better to
also change the local-buffer message to something like
"could not find an unpinned local buffer".
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2026-10-15 01:24:57 | Re: [PATCH] Add memory/disk usage for Function Scan nodes in EXPLAIN |
| Previous Message | Takeshi Ideriha | 2026-10-15 00:49:48 | Re: Incorrect CONTEXT reported for errors from parallel apply worker in logical replication |