Re: Increase footprint of %m and reduce strerror()

(Just to clarifying the last mail..)

At Thu, 05 Dec 2019 12:06:54 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> At Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:36:48 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 03:32:11PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > > It sounds good to me. Message unification (including printf) needs
> > > somehow treating trailing new lines, though. About translation
> > > burden, I'm not sure how the message unification eases translators'
> > > work. Identical messages of different commands appear having different
> > > neighbours in different po files.
> >
> > Newlines are a problem. Still there are cases where we don't use
> > them. See for example pg_waldump.c. It seems like it would be first
> > interesting to fix the code paths where we know we can reduce the
> > duplicates.
>
> So, (IIUC) do we replace fprintf()s for error reporting together (but
> maybe in a separate patch)?
>
> > > By the way aren't we going to have ereport on frontend?
> >
> > Not sure that this will happen, there are quite a few things to
> > consider related to what error hints and such should be for frontends.
> > That's quite a different discussion..
>
> Agreed.
>
> +1 for going that way after having above considerations.

(This might be took wrongly. The following would be clearer.)

Since I see the above considertaions, I put +1 for this.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center