Horton

Re: BufFileRead() error signalling

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-01-28T20:51:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:03 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> That's actually not the best fit, because this does not take care of
> the pluralization of the second message if you have only 1 byte to
> read ;)

But ... if you have only one byte to read, you cannot have a short read.

> A second point to take into account is that the unification of error
> messages makes for less translation work, which is always welcome.
> Those points have been discussed on this thread:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180520000522.GB1603@paquier.xyz

I quickly reread that thread and I don't see that there's any firm
consensus there in favor of "read %d of %zu" over "read only %d of %zu
bytes". Now, if most people prefer the former, so be it, but I don't
think that's clear from that thread.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Commits

  1. Make BufFileWrite() void.

  2. Fix buffile.c error handling.

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