From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: a small proposal for avoiding foot-shooting |
Date: | 2008-12-21 00:35:34 |
Message-ID: | 20081221003534.GE3989@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems like it might be better to rephrase error messages to ensure
> that anything really critical is mentioned in the primary message.
> In this case, perhaps instead of
> errmsg("could not locate required checkpoint record")
> we could have it print
> errmsg("could not locate checkpoint record specified in file \"%s/backup_label\".", DataDir)
> assuming we did actually get the location from there.
Is errdetail not printed when verbosity = terse? I wonder if
backup_label should be mentioned in DETAIL rather than HINT. Perhaps:
errmsg("could not locate required checkpoint record"),
errdetail("\"%s/backup_label\" specifies a checkpoint record not found.", DataDir),
errhint("If you are not restoring from a backup, try removing that file.")
or something like that.
I agree that this seems like critical information that should not be
printed only in a hint message.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Abhijit Menon-Sen | 2008-12-21 04:05:22 | Re: pg_dump roles support [Review] |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-12-21 00:13:55 | Re: reloptions and toast tables |