On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:48:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Well, since EINVAL is the default result from _dosmaperr, and none of
> >> the cases it represents are "expected", why don't we just remove all of
> >> the explicit mappings to EINVAL from doserrors[]?
>
> > Well, the problematic routine is not already using _dosmaperr currently.
> > It is doing it's own mapping and neglecting to report anything.
>
> Oh, well then why are we arguing? There is no reason at all to assume
> that _dosmaperr wouldn't give us a sufficiently good fix on the error
> if it were only being used. At the very least, I think we should put
> in Magnus' patch and find out whether it gives sufficient information.
> If it doesn't, then we can think about changing to a higher log level.
Applied.
//Magnus
