Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?
Date: 2022-06-14 02:59:47
Message-ID: Yqf5o6OR5vHnCZC5@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:41:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * logging.c believes it should prefix every line of output with the
> program's name and so on. This doesn't seem terribly appropriate
> for pg_upgrade's use --- at least, not unless we make pg_upgrade
> WAY less chatty. Perhaps that'd be fine, I dunno.

pg_upgrade was designed to be chatty because it felt it could fail under
unpredictable circumstances --- I am not sure how true that is today.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com

Indecision is a decision. Inaction is an action. Mark Batterson

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-06-14 03:05:43 Re: pltcl crash on recent macOS
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2022-06-14 02:50:12 Re: [v15 beta] pg_upgrade failed if earlier executed with -c switch