On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think it would be better not to include either the snapshot or the >> block number, and just find some way to reword the error message so >> that it mentions which relation was involved without implying that all >> access to the relation would necessarily fail. For example: >> >> ERROR: snapshot too old >> DETAIL: One or more rows required by this query have already been >> removed from "%s". > > That particular language would be misleading. All we know about > the page is that it was modified since the referencing (old) > snapshot was taken. We don't don't know in what way it was > modified, so we must assume that it *might* have been pruned of > rows that the snapshot should still be able to see.
Oh, yeah. So maybe "may have already been removed".
Just to be clear, you're suggesting 'One or more rows may have already been removed from "%s"?
