Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Should I embed or parameterize syscall/Win32 function names from error messages?

From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] > 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

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Should I embed or parameterize syscall/Win32 function names from error messages?

"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" 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, >

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Should I embed or parameterize syscall/Win32 function names from error messages?

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier > I find it hard to have an opinion on the matter as a non-translator. > Why not asking translators directly on pgsql-translators? > I didn't think of pgsql-translators. I'll ask

Re: [HACKERS] [RFC] Should I embed or parameterize syscall/Win32 function names from error messages?

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > I'm rather inclined to choose Option 1 to reduce message translation work. > Actually, is the Option 3 the best so that it aligns with the existing > messages by putting the error code in the primary

[HACKERS] [RFC] Should I embed or parameterize syscall/Win32 function names from error messages?

Hello, all Could you give me your opinions on the message style? Recently, I got different comments from Magnus and Alvaro during the review of "Supporting huge_pages on Windows", which is now shifted to CommitFest 2017-3. To be more specific, I'm modifying src/backend/port/win32_shmem.c