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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?
Date: 2022-06-13 17:25:01
Message-ID: 3824880.1655141101@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The root cause of the errors is that the user-provided directory path
> of new cluster's root was too long. Anywhich one of the four buffers
> is overflowed, it doesn't makes any difference for users and doesn't
> offer any further detail to suppoerters/developers. I see "output
> directory path of new cluster too long" clear enough.

+1, but I'm inclined to make it read "... is too long".

> # And the messages are missing trailing line breaks.

I was about to question that, but now I remember that pg_upgrade has
its own logging facility with a different idea about who provides
the trailing newline than common/logging.[hc] has. Undoubtedly
that's the source of this mistake. We really need to get pg_upgrade
out of the business of having its own logging conventions.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-06-13 17:38:01 Re: 2022-06-16 release announcement draft
Previous Message Aleksander Alekseev 2022-06-13 16:59:36 Re: better page-level checksums