Re: BufFileRead() error signalling - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: BufFileRead() error signalling
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZ=AMAvQBKJ=c1yzD7_vKoLJ_oSKgrTDW25e_L51P_PkA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BufFileRead() error signalling  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: BufFileRead() error signalling  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:26 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:51:54PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The argument of consistency falls in favor of the former on HEAD:
> $ git grep "could not read" | grep "read %d of %zu" | wc -l
> 59
> $ git grep "could not read" | grep "read only %d of %zu" | wc -l
> 0

True. I didn't realize that 'read %d of %zu' was so widely used.

Your grep misses one instance of 'read only %d of %d bytes' because
you grepped for %zu specifically, but that doesn't really change the
overall picture.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: closesocket behavior in different platforms
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: pause recovery if pitr target not reached