Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death on both win32 and Unix

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death on both win32 and Unix
Date: 2011-06-30 12:20:00
Message-ID: BANLkTi=hOsATw52DZ+zC-xMz=ag-Gc=eqg@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I don't think that the way I've phrased my error messages is
> inconsistent with that style guide, excepty perhaps the pipe()
> reference, but if you feel it's important to try and use "could not",
> I have no objections.

I  like Fujii's rephrasing - we don't usually mention the name of the
system call.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-06-30 12:47:11
Subject: Re: how to call the function--pqCatenateResultError()
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-06-30 11:59:44
Subject: Re: Adding Japanese README

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group