On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote: > > 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: > > > > > 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"? > > Focusing on the relation itself for a second, I think the name should be > schema-qualified. What about using errtable()? > > Can this happen for relation types other than tables, say materialized > views? (Your suggested wording omits relation type so it wouldn't be > affected, but it's worth considering I think.) > I'm fairly certain it can hit other things, including indexes and definitely matviews, but I won't say I'm 100% sure :) The check is at block level. Does errtable() work for that? (I've never used it, and it seems it's only actually use din a single place in the codebase..) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
