Thread: I want to omit the fopen message of Windows.
Hi Magnus.
Is this message necessary for setting errno again?
LOG: database system was interrupted; last known up at 2007-02-28 14:42:27 JST
LOG: Windows fopen("recovery.conf","r") failed: code 2, errno 2
LOG: Windows fopen("pg_xlog/00000001.history","r") failed: code 2, errno 2
LOG: Windows fopen("backup_label","r") failed: code 2, errno 2
LOG: checkpoint record is at 0/4C54A8
LOG: redo record is at 0/4C54A8; undo record is at 0/0; shutdown TRUE
LOG: next transaction ID: 0/599; next OID: 11468
LOG: next MultiXactId: 1; next MultiXactOffset: 0
LOG: database system was not properly shut down; automatic recovery in progress
LOG: record with zero length at 0/4C54F8
LOG: redo is not required
LOG: Windows fopen("global/pg_fsm.cache","rb") failed: code 2, errno 2
LOG: database system is ready to accept connections
LOG: Windows fopen("global/pgstat.stat","rb") failed: code 2, errno 2
LOG: autovacuum launcher started
I have misgivings about user's surprise...... You have already completed debugging.:-)
Therefore, it wants to make it omit at the DEBUG1 level.
Regards,
Hiroshi Saito
Attachment
"Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito@guitar.ocn.ne.jp> writes:
> Is this message necessary for setting errno again?
AFAIR we only intended that message as a temporary measure until we'd
figured out why things seemed to be failing on Windows. If there's no
longer a need, I'd vote for removing the whole code chunk, not just
stepping the level down by one. But if you are still seeing it, maybe
we haven't figured out why the failure?
regards, tom lane
Hi Tom-san. > "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito@guitar.ocn.ne.jp> writes: >> Is this message necessary for setting errno again? > > AFAIR we only intended that message as a temporary measure until we'd > figured out why things seemed to be failing on Windows. If there's no > longer a need, I'd vote for removing the whole code chunk, not just > stepping the level down by one. But if you are still seeing it, maybe > we haven't figured out why the failure? Yes, it might be not necessary. I agrees. thanks! Regards, Hiroshi Saito
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:20:01AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito@guitar.ocn.ne.jp> writes: > > Is this message necessary for setting errno again? > > AFAIR we only intended that message as a temporary measure until we'd > figured out why things seemed to be failing on Windows. If there's no > longer a need, I'd vote for removing the whole code chunk, not just > stepping the level down by one. But if you are still seeing it, maybe > we haven't figured out why the failure? No, you see it during normal startup - for example, pg_internal.init does not exist at this time. So don't think it's needed - I'll zap it in a bit if noone objecst. //Magnus
On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:04:58AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 02:20:01AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito@guitar.ocn.ne.jp> writes: > > > Is this message necessary for setting errno again? > > > > AFAIR we only intended that message as a temporary measure until we'd > > figured out why things seemed to be failing on Windows. If there's no > > longer a need, I'd vote for removing the whole code chunk, not just > > stepping the level down by one. But if you are still seeing it, maybe > > we haven't figured out why the failure? > > No, you see it during normal startup - for example, pg_internal.init > does not exist at this time. So don't think it's needed - I'll zap it in > a bit if noone objecst. Removed. //Magnus