On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I think it would be better not to include either the snapshot or the > >> block number, and just find some way to reword the error message so > >> that it mentions which relation was involved without implying that all > >> access to the relation would necessarily fail. For example: > >> > >> ERROR: snapshot too old > >> DETAIL: One or more rows required by this query have already been > >> removed from "%s". > > > > That particular language would be misleading. All we know about > > the page is that it was modified since the referencing (old) > > snapshot was taken. We don't don't know in what way it was > > modified, so we must assume that it *might* have been pruned of > > rows that the snapshot should still be able to see. > > Oh, yeah. So maybe "may have already been removed". > Just to be clear, you're suggesting 'One or more rows may have already been removed from "%s"? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
