Re: Simplify code building the LR conflict messages
| От | shveta malik |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Simplify code building the LR conflict messages |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAJpy0uBef9erMtieHKgu78G7fdT-WXcCgGLMjdP9uSZV4DmrBw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Simplify code building the LR conflict messages (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
RE: Simplify code building the LR conflict messages
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Kuroda-San, I looked at the code. Currently it is slightly complicated. Can we please simplify it by removing different message-styles for a single conflict. For example MULTIPLE_UNIQUE_CONFLICTS has below: 1) When key and local rows are there: "Key %s already exists in unique index \"%s\", modified locally in transaction %u at %s: local row %s. When key is not there: "Unique index \"%s\" rejects applying due to local row %s, modified locally in transaction %u at %s." When local row is not there: "Key %s already exists in unique index \"%s\", modified locally in transaction %u at %s." When both key and local row is not there: Remote row violates unique constraint \"%s\", modified locally in transaction %u at %s." Can we try to construct message like this: (both key value and local row at the end) Key already exists in unique index "conf_tab_pkey", modified locally in transaction <..> at <...>: Key (a)=(2), local row (2, 2, 2), We can keep the message same for all 4 cases above. 2) Also there are many if-else blocks around the below type of message as well: DETAIL: Could not find the row to be updated by using replica identity (i)=(30): remote row (30, 300). If we instead have this: DETAIL: Could not find the row to be updated: replica identity (i)=(30), remote row (30, 300). Will it simplify the code, can you please check? thanks Shveta
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: