On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com>wrote:
> On 2013-09-06 10:52:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > I have no clue about the gettext stuff but I am in favor of including > > > the raw errno in strerror() messages (no backpatching tho). > > > > I dislike that on grounds of readability and translatability; and > > I'm also of the opinion that errno codes aren't really consistent > > enough across platforms to be all that trustworthy for remote diagnostic > > purposes. > Historically they weren't even the same on Linux acros architectures. This was to support running native binaries from the incumbent platform (SunOS, OSF, BSD) under emulation on each architecture. I don't see any evidence of that any more but I'm not sure I'm looking in the right place. > Well, it's easier to get access to mappings between errno and meaning of > foreign systems than to get access to their translations in my > experience. > That's definitely true. There are only a few possible platforms and it's not hard to convert an errno to an error string on a given platform. Converting a translated string in some language you can't read to an untranslated string is another matter. What would be nicer would be to display the C define, EINVAL, EPERM, etc. Afaik there's no portable way to do that though. I suppose we could just have a small array or hash table of all the errors we know about and look it up. -- greg
