|From:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: An extra error for client disconnection on Windows|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
At Tue, 13 Sep 2016 10:00:32 -0300, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <20160913130032(dot)GA391646(at)alvherre(dot)pgsql>
> Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > > If we take a policy to try to imitate the behavior of some
> > > reference platform (specifically Linux) on other platforms, this
> > > is required disguising. Another potential policy on this problem
> > > is "following the platform's behavior". From this viewpoint, this
> > > message should be shown to users because Windows says
> > > so. Especially for socket operations, the simultion layer is
> > > intending the former for non-error behaviors, but I'm not sure
> > > about the behaviors on errors.
> > The more you hack windows, the more you'll notice that it is full of
> > caveats, behavior exceptions, and that it runs in its way as nothing
> > else in this world... This patch looks like a tempest in a teapot at
> > the end. Why is it actually a problem to show this message? Just
> > useless noise? If that's the only reason let's drop the patch and move
> > on.
> Yeah, I looked into this a few days ago and that was my conclusion also:
> let's drop this.
Ok, I greed. Thanks.
NTT Open Source Software Center
|Next Message||Heikki Linnakangas||2016-09-29 09:49:27||Re: Tuplesort merge pre-reading|
|Previous Message||amul sul||2016-09-29 08:54:01||Re: Bug in to_timestamp().|