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.
regards, tom lane
