Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?
Date
Msg-id Yqf5o6OR5vHnCZC5@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: "buffer too small" or "path too long"?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 10:41:41PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * logging.c believes it should prefix every line of output with the
> program's name and so on.  This doesn't seem terribly appropriate
> for pg_upgrade's use --- at least, not unless we make pg_upgrade
> WAY less chatty.  Perhaps that'd be fine, I dunno.

pg_upgrade was designed to be chatty because it felt it could fail under
unpredictable circumstances --- I am not sure how true that is today.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  Indecision is a decision.  Inaction is an action.  Mark Batterson




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [v15 beta] pg_upgrade failed if earlier executed with -c switch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pltcl crash on recent macOS