Thread: convert elog(LOG) calls to ereport
There are a number of elog(LOG) calls that appear to be user-facing, so they should be ereport()s. This patch changes them. There are more elog(LOG) calls remaining, but they all appear to be some kind of debugging support. Also, I changed a few elog(FATAL)s that were nearby, but I didn't specifically look for them.
Attachment
On 2020-Dec-02, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> There are a number of elog(LOG) calls that appear to be user-facing, so they
> should be ereport()s. This patch changes them. There are more elog(LOG)
> calls remaining, but they all appear to be some kind of debugging support.
> Also, I changed a few elog(FATAL)s that were nearby, but I didn't
> specifically look for them.
> - elog(LOG, "WSAIoctl(SIO_KEEPALIVE_VALS) failed: %ui",
> - WSAGetLastError());
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("WSAIoctl(SIO_KEEPALIVE_VALS) failed: %ui",
> + WSAGetLastError())));
Please take the opportunity to move the flag name out of the message in
this one, also. I do wonder if it'd be a good idea to move the syscall
name itself out of the message, too; that would reduce the number of
messages to translate 50x to just "%s(%s) failed: %m" instead of one
message per distinct syscall.
Should fd.c messages do errcode_for_file_access() like elsewhere?
Overall, it looks good to me.
Thanks
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:04:45AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Please take the opportunity to move the flag name out of the message in
> this one, also. I do wonder if it'd be a good idea to move the syscall
> name itself out of the message, too; that would reduce the number of
> messages to translate 50x to just "%s(%s) failed: %m" instead of one
> message per distinct syscall.
+1.
+ else
+ ereport(LOG,
+ (errmsg("checkpoint starting:%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s",
Would it be better to add a note for translators here, in short that
all those %s are options related to checkpoint/restartpoints?
The ones in geqo_erx.c look like debugging information, and the ones
in win32_shmem.c for segment creation are code paths only used by the
postmaster.
--
Michael
Attachment
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 02:26:24PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> There are a number of elog(LOG) calls that appear to be user-facing, so they
> should be ereport()s.
> @@ -8591,25 +8604,46 @@ LogCheckpointEnd(bool restartpoint)
> CheckpointStats.ckpt_sync_rels;
> average_msecs = (long) ((average_sync_time + 999) / 1000);
>
> - elog(LOG, "%s complete: wrote %d buffers (%.1f%%); "
> - "%d WAL file(s) added, %d removed, %d recycled; "
> - "write=%ld.%03d s, sync=%ld.%03d s, total=%ld.%03d s; "
> - "sync files=%d, longest=%ld.%03d s, average=%ld.%03d s; "
> - "distance=%d kB, estimate=%d kB",
+1 to this change.
> @@ -1763,7 +1771,8 @@ pq_setkeepalivesidle(int idle, Port *port)
> #else
> if (idle != 0)
> {
> - elog(LOG, "setting the keepalive idle time is not supported");
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("setting the keepalive idle time is not supported")));
+1
> --- a/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c
> +++ b/src/backend/optimizer/geqo/geqo_erx.c
> @@ -420,7 +420,8 @@ edge_failure(PlannerInfo *root, Gene *gene, int index, Edge *edge_table, int num
> }
> }
>
> - elog(LOG, "no edge found via random decision and total_edges == 4");
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("no edge found via random decision and total_edges == 4")));
The user can't act upon this without reading the source code. This and the
other messages proposed in this file are better as elog().
> @@ -343,7 +346,8 @@ PGSharedMemoryCreate(Size size,
> * care.
> */
> if (!CloseHandle(hmap))
> - elog(LOG, "could not close handle to shared memory: error code %lu", GetLastError());
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("could not close handle to shared memory: error code %lu", GetLastError())));
The numerous messages proposed in src/backend/port/ files are can't-happen
events, and there's little a DBA can do without reading the source code.
They're better as elog().
> @@ -6108,8 +6111,9 @@ backend_read_statsfile(void)
> /* Copy because timestamptz_to_str returns a static buffer */
> filetime = pstrdup(timestamptz_to_str(file_ts));
> mytime = pstrdup(timestamptz_to_str(cur_ts));
> - elog(LOG, "stats collector's time %s is later than backend local time %s",
> - filetime, mytime);
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("statistics collector's time %s is later than backend local time %s",
> + filetime, mytime)));
+1
> @@ -769,10 +769,11 @@ StartupReplicationOrigin(void)
> replication_states[last_state].remote_lsn = disk_state.remote_lsn;
> last_state++;
>
> - elog(LOG, "recovered replication state of node %u to %X/%X",
> - disk_state.roident,
> - (uint32) (disk_state.remote_lsn >> 32),
> - (uint32) disk_state.remote_lsn);
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("recovered replication state of node %u to %X/%X",
> + disk_state.roident,
> + (uint32) (disk_state.remote_lsn >> 32),
> + (uint32) disk_state.remote_lsn)));
+1
> @@ -1914,7 +1914,8 @@ FileClose(File file)
>
> /* in any case do the unlink */
> if (unlink(vfdP->fileName))
> - elog(LOG, "could not unlink file \"%s\": %m", vfdP->fileName);
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("could not unlink file \"%s\": %m", vfdP->fileName)));
+1
>
> /* and last report the stat results */
> if (stat_errno == 0)
> @@ -1922,7 +1923,8 @@ FileClose(File file)
> else
> {
> errno = stat_errno;
> - elog(LOG, "could not stat file \"%s\": %m", vfdP->fileName);
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("could not stat file \"%s\": %m", vfdP->fileName)));
+1
For the changes I didn't mention explicitly (most of them), I'm -0.5. Many of
them "can't happen", use source code terms of art, and/or breach guideline
"Avoid mentioning called function names, either; instead say what the code was
trying to do" (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/error-style-guide.html).
On 2020-12-02 15:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> - elog(LOG, "WSAIoctl(SIO_KEEPALIVE_VALS) failed: %ui",
>> - WSAGetLastError());
>> + ereport(LOG,
>> + (errmsg("WSAIoctl(SIO_KEEPALIVE_VALS) failed: %ui",
>> + WSAGetLastError())));
>
> Please take the opportunity to move the flag name out of the message in
> this one, also.
done
> I do wonder if it'd be a good idea to move the syscall
> name itself out of the message, too; that would reduce the number of
> messages to translate 50x to just "%s(%s) failed: %m" instead of one
> message per distinct syscall.
Seems useful, but perhaps as a separate project.
> Should fd.c messages do errcode_for_file_access() like elsewhere?
yes, done
On 2020-12-03 08:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
> + else
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("checkpoint starting:%s%s%s%s%s%s%s%s",
>
> Would it be better to add a note for translators here, in short that
> all those %s are options related to checkpoint/restartpoints?
done
> The ones in geqo_erx.c look like debugging information, and the ones
> in win32_shmem.c for segment creation are code paths only used by the
> postmaster.
I dialed those back a bit.
On 2020-12-03 08:55, Noah Misch wrote: > For the changes I didn't mention explicitly (most of them), I'm -0.5. Many of > them "can't happen", use source code terms of art, and/or breach guideline > "Avoid mentioning called function names, either; instead say what the code was > trying to do" (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/error-style-guide.html). Thanks for the detailed feedback. I dialed back some of the changes based on your feedback.
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:34:26PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-12-02 15:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I do wonder if it'd be a good idea to move the syscall
>> name itself out of the message, too; that would reduce the number of
>> messages to translate 50x to just "%s(%s) failed: %m" instead of one
>> message per distinct syscall.
>
> Seems useful, but perhaps as a separate project.
- elog(LOG, "getsockname() failed: %m");
+ ereport(LOG,
+ (errmsg("getsockname() failed: %m")));
FWIW, I disagree with the approach taken by eb93f3a. As of HEAD, it
is now required to translate all those strings. I think that it would
have been better to remove the function names from all those error
messages and not require the same pattern to be translated N times.
--
Michael
Attachment
On 05.12.20 03:22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 02:34:26PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 2020-12-02 15:04, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> I do wonder if it'd be a good idea to move the syscall
>>> name itself out of the message, too; that would reduce the number of
>>> messages to translate 50x to just "%s(%s) failed: %m" instead of one
>>> message per distinct syscall.
>>
>> Seems useful, but perhaps as a separate project.
>
> - elog(LOG, "getsockname() failed: %m");
> + ereport(LOG,
> + (errmsg("getsockname() failed: %m")));
> FWIW, I disagree with the approach taken by eb93f3a. As of HEAD, it
> is now required to translate all those strings. I think that it would
> have been better to remove the function names from all those error
> messages and not require the same pattern to be translated N times.
I made another pass across this and implemented the requested change.