On 2018-04-04 22:10:06 -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Wednesday, April 4, 2018, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:14 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > Questions: > > > > > > - I'm not perfectly happy with > > > "tuple to be locked was already moved to another partition due to > > concurrent update" > > > as the error message. If somebody has a better suggestions. > > > > > > > I don't have any better suggestion, but I have noticed a small > > inconsistency in the message. In case of delete, the message is > > "tuple to be updated was ...". I think here it should be "tuple to be > > deleted was ..." > > > > The whole "moved to another partition" explains why and seems better placed > in the errdetail. The error itself should indicate which attempted action > failed. And the attempted action for the end user usually isn't the scope > of "locked tuple" - it's the insert or update, the locking is a side effect > (why).
Well, update/delete have their own messages, don't think you can get this for inserts (there'd be no tuple to follow across EPQ). The case I copied from above, was locking a tuple, hence the reference to that. I don't agree with moving "moved to another partition" to errdetail, that's *the* crucial detail. If there's anything in the error message, it should be that. Greetings, Andres Freund
