Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRoUl-0007xl-T1 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 03:27:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRoUj-0001EH-II for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 03:27:29 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRoUj-0001E3-BC for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 03:27:29 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRoUh-0002Bj-1r for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 12 Oct 2020 03:27:28 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 09C3RIvR3062458; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:27:18 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Michael Paquier cc: Juan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Santamar=EDa?= Flecha , Emil Iggland , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: BUG #15858: could not stat file - over 4GB In-reply-to: <20201012010108.GB2346@paquier.xyz> References: <160209800917.1171.12856112208955258625.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org> <2831747.1602274940@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20201010122353.GA2985@paquier.xyz> <2920041.1602351778@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20201011002452.GA6607@paquier.xyz> <2944395.1602376488@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20201012010108.GB2346@paquier.xyz> Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier message dated "Mon, 12 Oct 2020 10:01:08 +0900" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3062456.1602473238.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 23:27:18 -0400 Message-ID: <3062457.1602473238@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Michael Paquier writes: > Why are we forcing errno=ENOENT here? Wouldn't it be correct to use > _dosmaperr(GetLastError()) to get the correct errno? Fair question. Juan, was there some good reason not to look at GetLastError() in this step? regards, tom lane