Horton

Re: BufFileRead() error signalling

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-05-28T07:10:12Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 11:59:59AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In the discussion that led to 811b6e36a9e2 I did suggest to use "read
> only M of N" instead, but there wasn't enough discussion on that fine
> point so we settled on what you now call prevalent without a lot of
> support specifically on that.  I guess it was enough of an improvement
> over what was there.  But like Robert, I too prefer the wording that
> includes "only" and "bytes" over the wording that doesn't.
> 
> I'll let it be known that from a translator's point of view, it's a
> ten-seconds job to update a fuzzy string from not including "only" and
> "bytes" to one that does.  So let's not make that an argument for not
> changing.

Using "only" would be fine by me, though I tend to prefer the existing
one.  Now I think that we should avoid "bytes" to not have to worry
about pluralization of error messages.  This has been a concern in the
past (see e5d11b9 and the likes).
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Make BufFileWrite() void.

  2. Fix buffile.c error handling.

  3. Adjust WAL code so that checkpoints truncate the xlog at the previous