| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works |
| Date: | 2018-09-26 15:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | 3034.1537974599@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:05:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> Actually I think it *is* useful to do it like this, because then the
>>> user knows to fix the netmsg.dll problem so that they can continue to
>>> investigate the winsock problem. If we don't report the secondary error
>>> message, how are users going to figure out how to fix the problem?
>> OK, I'm fine with doing it like that if people want it.
> +1.
OK, pushed 0001 with that adjustment.
While looking over the thread, I remembered I wanted to convert
strerror_r into a wrapper as well. Think I'll go do that next,
because really it'd be better for snprintf.c to be calling strerror_r
not strerror.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2018-09-26 15:14:02 | Re: Online verification of checksums |
| Previous Message | Arseny Sher | 2018-09-26 15:02:47 | Re: Global snapshots |