Re: relation OID in ReorderBufferToastReplace error message
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: relation OID in ReorderBufferToastReplace error message |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1LraARugiEEpkjJVDXEeTukW1ihG_6=nVEZ1972Z1vTeg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: relation OID in ReorderBufferToastReplace error message (Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: relation OID in ReorderBufferToastReplace error message
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 6:14 AM Jeremy Schneider <schnjere@amazon.com> wrote: > > On 7/2/21 18:57, Jeremy Schneider wrote: > > The process of trying to understand this recent incident has given me some new insight about what information would behelpful up front in this error message for faster resolution. > > First off, and most importantly, the current WAL record we're processing when the error is encountered. I wonder if itcould easily print the LSN? > > Secondly, the transaction ID. In the specific bug Bertrand found, the problem is actually not with the actual WAL recordthat's being processed - but rather because previous WAL records in the same transaction left the decoder process ina state where the current WAL record [a commit] generated an error. So it's the entire transaction that needs to be examinedto reproduce the error. (Andres actually pointed this out on the original thread back in December 2019.) I realizethat once you know the LSN you can easily get the XID with pg_waldump, but personally I'd just as soon include theXID in the error message since I think it will usually be a first step for debugging any problems with WAL decoding. TheI can go straight to filtering that XID on my first pg_waldump run. > I don't think it is a bad idea to print additional information as you are suggesting but why only for this error? It could be useful to investigate any other error we get during decoding. I think normally we add such additional information via error_context. We have recently added/enhanced it for apply-workers, see commit [1]. I think here we should just print the relation name in the error message you pointed out and then work on adding additional information via error context as a separate patch. What do you think? [1] - https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=abc0910e2e0adfc5a17e035465ee31242e32c4fc -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: