Thread: message clarifications
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" #: storage/ipc/procarray.c:2224 msgid "record known xact %u latestObservedXid %u" #: storage/ipc/procarray.c:2257 msgid "recording unobserved xid %u (latestObservedXid %u)" #: storage/ipc/procarray.c:2379 msgid "too many KnownAssignedXids" #: storage/ipc/standby.c:861 msgid "" "snapshot of %u running transactions overflowed (lsn %X/%X oldest " "xid %u next xid %u)" #: storage/ipc/standby.c:868 msgid "" "snapshot of %u running transaction ids (lsn %X/%X oldest xid %u " "next xid %u)" Help please.
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 11:00 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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. OK, will look. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
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"?
regards, tom lane
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? ...Robert
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
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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 errdetail and errhint that go along with it will perhaps help to
answer that.
regards, tom lane
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? ...Robert
On lör, 2010-04-03 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane 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"? Yeah, that plus some hints maybe. "pg_notify" had me confused initially, since it looks like a system catalog table name.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On lör, 2010-04-03 at 11:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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"?
> Yeah, that plus some hints maybe. "pg_notify" had me confused
> initially, since it looks like a system catalog table name.
OK, I did this:
Index: async.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/commands/async.c,v
retrieving revision 1.155
diff -c -r1.155 async.c
*** async.c 26 Feb 2010 02:00:37 -0000 1.155
--- async.c 5 Apr 2010 00:38:03 -0000
***************
*** 1421,1432 **** } 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 can only proceed if this backend ends its current transaction.")
:0))); asyncQueueControl->lastQueueFillWarn = t;
--- 1421,1432 ---- } ereport(WARNING,
! (errmsg("NOTIFY queue is %.0f%% full", fillDegree * 100), (minPid != InvalidPid ?
! errdetail("The server process with PID %d is among those with the oldest transactions.", minPid)
: 0), (minPid != InvalidPid ?
! errhint("The NOTIFY queue cannot be emptied until that process ends its current transaction.")
: 0))); asyncQueueControl->lastQueueFillWarn = t;
regards, tom lane
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 11:00 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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. > #: storage/ipc/procarray.c:2224 > msgid "record known xact %u latestObservedXid %u" > > > #: storage/ipc/procarray.c:2257 > msgid "recording unobserved xid %u (latestObservedXid %u)" > > > #: storage/ipc/procarray.c:2379 > msgid "too many KnownAssignedXids" > > > #: storage/ipc/standby.c:861 > msgid "" > "snapshot of %u running transactions overflowed (lsn %X/%X oldest " > "xid %u next xid %u)" > > > #: storage/ipc/standby.c:868 > msgid "" > "snapshot of %u running transaction ids (lsn %X/%X oldest xid %u " > "next xid %u)" These are all DEBUG messages. Can you explain "marked differently" so I can do that for you? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
On tis, 2010-04-06 at 10:30 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > These are all DEBUG messages. Can you explain "marked differently" so I > can do that for you? Then it would be better to convert them to use elog() instead of ereport().
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 12:44 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On tis, 2010-04-06 at 10:30 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > These are all DEBUG messages. Can you explain "marked differently" so I > > can do that for you? > > Then it would be better to convert them to use elog() instead of > ereport(). Will do -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On tis, 2010-04-06 at 10:30 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> These are all DEBUG messages. Can you explain "marked differently" so I
>> can do that for you?
> Then it would be better to convert them to use elog() instead of
> ereport().
Or use errmsg_internal instead of errmsg.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > On tis, 2010-04-06 at 10:30 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > >> These are all DEBUG messages. Can you explain "marked differently" so I > >> can do that for you? > > > Then it would be better to convert them to use elog() instead of > > ereport(). > > Or use errmsg_internal instead of errmsg. I've changed them to elog() before you said this. Would you like me to change them to errmsg_internal or do you mean "...as an option in the future"? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 09:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Or use errmsg_internal instead of errmsg.
> I've changed them to elog() before you said this. Would you like me to
> change them to errmsg_internal or do you mean "...as an option in the
> future"?
It's just a different option. elog for debug messages is a well
established practice, but if you wanted something that looked more
like ereport, you could hide the messages from translation with
the above.
regards, tom lane