Re: message clarifications
От | Joachim Wieland |
---|---|
Тема | Re: message clarifications |
Дата | |
Msg-id | x2odc7b844e1004031235k92852fd5o2545e8979390532b@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: message clarifications (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: >>> The following messages from the postgres catalog either appear to be >>> internal errors that should be marked differently, or they are in my >>> estimation unintelligible to users and should be rephrased. >> >>> #: commands/async.c:1424 >>> msgid "pg_notify queue is %.0f%% full" >> >> This one is probably my responsibility (the others all look like >> Simon's >> code). What do you not like about it, exactly? Perhaps it should be >> "NOTIFY queue is x% full"? > > I think maybe the question is why the user should care, or what they > are expected to do about it? The user/administrator should make sure that all backends work through the list of pending notifications. He does it by making sure that there are no long-running or idle-in-transaction backends. Actually there is more information given via errdetail and errhint: ereport(WARNING, (errmsg("pg_notify queue is %.0f%% full", fillDegree * 100), (minPid != InvalidPid ? errdetail("PID%d is among the slowest backends.", minPid) : 0), (minPid != InvalidPid ? errhint("Cleanup canonly proceed if this backend ends its current transaction.") : 0))); Peter, if you consider the additional information given here, do you still see an issue? Joachim
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: