Re: psql \watch 2nd argument: iteration count

From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, amborodin86(at)gmail(dot)com, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: psql \watch 2nd argument: iteration count
Date: 2023-03-14 19:03:00
Message-ID: 20230314190300.GB431737@nathanxps13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 01:58:59PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> + if (*opt_end)
> + pg_log_error("\\watch: incorrect interval value '%s'", opt);
> + else if (errno == ERANGE)
> + pg_log_error("\\watch: out-of-range interval value '%s'", opt);
> + else
> + pg_log_error("\\watch: interval value '%s' less than zero", opt);
> I'm not sure if we need error messages for that resolution and I'm a
> bit happier to have fewer messages to translate:p. Merging the cases
> of ERANGE and negative values might be better. And I think we usually
> refer to unparsable input as "invalid".
> if (*opt_end)
> pg_log_error("\\watch: invalid interval value '%s'", opt);
> else
> pg_log_error("\\watch: interval value '%s' out of range", opt);

+1, I don't think it's necessary to complicate these error messages too
much. This code hasn't reported errors for nearly 10 years, and I'm not
aware of any complaints. I ѕtill think we could simplify this to "\watch:
invalid delay interval: %s" and call it a day.

Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services:

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Dolgov 2023-03-14 19:04:32 Re: pg_stat_statements and "IN" conditions
Previous Message Gregory Stark (as CFM) 2023-03-14 18:54:55 Re: Raising the SCRAM iteration count