| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BufFileRead() error signalling |
| Date: | 2020-01-29 15:01:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ=AMAvQBKJ=c1yzD7_vKoLJ_oSKgrTDW25e_L51P_PkA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:26 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:51:54PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I quickly reread that thread and I don't see that there's any firm
> > consensus there in favor of "read %d of %zu" over "read only %d of %zu
> > bytes". Now, if most people prefer the former, so be it, but I don't
> > think that's clear from that thread.
>
> The argument of consistency falls in favor of the former on HEAD:
> $ git grep "could not read" | grep "read %d of %zu" | wc -l
> 59
> $ git grep "could not read" | grep "read only %d of %zu" | wc -l
> 0
True. I didn't realize that 'read %d of %zu' was so widely used.
Your grep misses one instance of 'read only %d of %d bytes' because
you grepped for %zu specifically, but that doesn't really change the
overall picture.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-01-29 15:01:46 | Re: pause recovery if pitr target not reached |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-01-29 14:59:10 | Re: closesocket behavior in different platforms |