On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 12:24 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
> > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > True. We can say "task will be automatically re-scheduled", so that
> > > people understand the message and don't start asking us.
> >
> > How about "temporarily cancelin
Tom Lane escribió:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > True. We can say "task will be automatically re-scheduled", so that
> > people understand the message and don't start asking us.
>
> How about "temporarily canceling autovacuum task"? This is accurate
> regardless of the origin of t
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> True. We can say "task will be automatically re-scheduled", so that
> people understand the message and don't start asking us.
How about "temporarily canceling autovacuum task"? This is accurate
regardless of the origin of the SIGINT.
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 12:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs escribió:
>
> > Sorry to come in on late on this: That wording is better, but it still
> > doesn't explain why it has occurred or what the user should do about it.
> > I think we will get other complaints saying "why has my aut
Simon Riggs escribió:
> Sorry to come in on late on this: That wording is better, but it still
> doesn't explain why it has occurred or what the user should do about it.
> I think we will get other complaints saying "why has my autovacuum been
> canceled?" and "what should I do about this?".
>
>
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 11:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane escribió:
> > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I don't advocate changing that ERROR to anything else. The message
> > > wording, as Tom says, can easily be changed -- I think this patch should
> > > be enough. Fee
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't advocate changing that ERROR to anything else. The message
> > wording, as Tom says, can easily be changed -- I think this patch should
> > be enough. Feel free to propose better wording.
>
> Minor gripe: all three varia
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't advocate changing that ERROR to anything else. The message
> wording, as Tom says, can easily be changed -- I think this patch should
> be enough. Feel free to propose better wording.
Minor gripe: all three variants of the message should follo
Gregory Stark escribió:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This falls in the category of "destabilizing the code for purely
> > cosmetic reasons", and would be a foolish change to make at RC1 time.
>
> I suppose. Expect to have more bug reports like this one then though.
>
> > We cou
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This falls in the category of "destabilizing the code for purely
> cosmetic reasons", and would be a foolish change to make at RC1 time.
I suppose. Expect to have more bug reports like this one then though.
> We could change the text of the ERROR message
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess we should capture this error with a PG_TRY and silently abort instead.
> Just a NOTICE or INFO should be sufficient. Other errors should of course be
> rethrown.
This falls in the category of "destabilizing the code for purely
cosmetic reasons",
"Alvaro Herrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruce Momjian escribió:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 10:13:53AM +, Gregory Stark wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Mike C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > >
>> > > > ERROR: canceling statement due to user request
>> > > > CONTE
como es el pg_dump y pg_restore que usas?
Saludos Fernando
Mike C. wrote:
The following bug has been logged online:
Bug reference: 3790
Logged by: Mike C.
Email address: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PostgreSQL version: 8.3beta3
Operating system: Linux 2.6.16.21-0.8-xen #1 SMP Mon Jul
13 matches
Mail list logo
