Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tatsuro Yamada
Subject Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks
Date
Msg-id 45ddca3d-5534-799d-ae71-ee21b3c6659c@nttcom.co.jp_1
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Amit-san,

> +           case TM_Invisible:
> +               elog(ERROR, "attempted to lock invisible tuple");
> +               break;
> +
> +           case TM_SelfModified:
> +           case TM_BeingModified:
> +           case TM_WouldBlock:
> +               elog(ERROR, "unexpected table_tuple_lock status: %u", res);
> +               break;
> 
> +           default:
> +               elog(ERROR, "unrecognized table_tuple_lock status: %u", res);
> 
> All of these are meant as debugging elog()s for cases that won't
> normally occur.  IIUC, the discussion at the linked thread excludes
> those from consideration.

Thanks for your explanation.
Ah, I reread the thread, and I now realized that user visible log messages
are the target to replace. I understood that that elog() for the cases won't
normally occur. Sorry for the noise.

Regards,
Tatsuro Yamada




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: New IndexAM API controlling index vacuum strategies
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: FailedAssertion in heap_index_delete_tuples at heapam.c:7220