From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] pg_upgrade: report the reason for failing to open the cluster version file |
Date: | 2020-02-26 08:56:05 |
Message-ID: | 2760811A-9AF4-4725-8A8A-061940CCF962@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 26 Feb 2020, at 02:48, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:55:06PM +0000, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> @@ -164,11 +164,11 @@ get_major_server_version(ClusterInfo *cluster)
>> snprintf(ver_filename, sizeof(ver_filename), "%s/PG_VERSION",
>> cluster->pgdata);
>> if ((version_fd = fopen(ver_filename, "r")) == NULL)
>> - pg_fatal("could not open version file: %s\n", ver_filename);
>> + pg_fatal("could not open version file \"%s\": %m\n", ver_filename);
>
> Here I think that it would be better to just use "could not open
> file" as we know that we are dealing with a version file already
> thanks to ver_filename.
Isn't that a removal of detail with very little benefit? Not everyone running
pg_upgrade will know internal filenames, and the ver_filename contains the
pgdata path as well which might provide additional clues in case this goes
wrong.
cheers ./daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-02-26 09:06:38 | Re: [PATCH] pg_upgrade: report the reason for failing to open the cluster version file |
Previous Message | Sandro Santilli | 2020-02-26 08:46:32 | Re: Marking some contrib modules as trusted extensions |