| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD <Andreas(dot)Zeugswetter(at)s-itsolutions(dot)at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgwin32_open returning EINVAL |
| Date: | 2007-12-20 00:50:29 |
| Message-ID: | 1397.1198111829@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Updated version attached. Comments on the wording of the messages are also
> welcome ;-)
Well, since you asked ;-) ... I don't particularly like this.
1. Doesn't distinguish SHARING_VIOLATION from LOCK_VIOLATION.
We might want to know that.
2. Do we really want this to be WARNING? LOG seems a better idea,
since it's not warning about anything the client app did wrong.
3. Doesn't follow the message style guide: shoehorning two sentences
into errmsg() is surely not compliant. Perhaps
errmsg: could not open file \"%s\": sharing violation
OR errmsg: could not open file \"%s\": lock violation
errdetail: Continuing to retry for up to 30 seconds.
errhint: OK as you have it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2007-12-20 01:01:28 | Re: Sorting Improvements for 8.4 |
| Previous Message | Decibel! | 2007-12-20 00:24:33 | Re: New style of hash join proposal |