Re: Not representable result out of too large range

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Not representable result out of too large range
Date: 2001-08-06 20:02:11
Message-ID: 24333.997128131@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> We have five different expected files for the int2 and int4 tests because
> every system has a different idea on what to print for ERANGE. I'm about
> to add another version. Would it make more sense to hard code one wording
> and not use strerror here?

Kinda sounds like the path of least resistance, doesn't it? I assume
you'd do the substitution inside elog(), so it's consistent for all
places that might report ERANGE via %m ?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-08-06 20:27:39 Notes about int8 sequences
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-08-06 19:49:37 Re: Possible solution for LIKE optimization