| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: strange error reporting |
| Date: | 2021-01-21 01:33:47 |
| Message-ID: | 798280.1611192827@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Maybe it would be better if it said:
>>> connection to database at socket "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432" failed: FATAL:
>>> database "rhaas" does not exist
>> I'd be inclined to spell it "connection to server at ... failed",
>> but that sort of wording is surely also possible.
> "connection to server" rather than "connection to database" works for
> me; in fact, I think I like it slightly better.
If I don't hear any other opinions, I'll change these messages to
"connection to server at socket \"%s\" failed: "
"connection to server at \"%s\" (%s), port %s failed: "
(or maybe "server on socket"? "at" sounds right for the IP address
case, but it feels a little off in the socket pathname case.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2021-01-21 01:35:32 | Re: Printing backtrace of postgres processes |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2021-01-21 01:24:55 | Re: POC: postgres_fdw insert batching |