"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> writes: > I added a few ereport() calls that emit the same message except for the Win32 > API name. Which of the following do you think is the best? I'd like to > follow the majority.
> [Option 1] > ereport(elevel, > (errmsg("could not enable Lock pages in memory user right"), > errdetail("Failed system call was %s, error code %lu", > "OpenProcessToken", GetLastError()))); > [Option 2] > ereport(elevel, > (errmsg("could not enable Lock Pages in Memory user right: error code > %lu", GetLastError()), > errdetail("Failed system call was OpenProcessToken."))); TBH, I think you are worried about the wrong thing here. You could drop both of those errdetail calls altogether and be little worse off. In the places where we have errdetail calls like "failed system call was xxx", the main point is to show the exact parameters that were given to the system call, and neither of these do that. These errdetail messages would only be useful if the identical ereport errmsg might be issued for failures from different underlying Windows calls --- but I doubt that's what you're intending here. My problem with these messages is I am not sure what "memory user right" means. Probably that just needs a bit of editing. But I'd go for something like "could not do xxx: error code %lu", and not bother mentioning the system call name, unless failing to do so has some impact on whether we could understand what happened from a field report of this error message. (See the "Function Names" item in our message style guidelines for more about this issue. Maybe we need to expand that item some more.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers