From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
In-reply-to: <20180925154829.rbjxmmcpd5z7ueyq@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20180925154829.rbjxmmcpd5z7ueyq@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:48:29 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <28377.1537891542.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 12:05:42 -0400
Message-ID: <28378.1537891542@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2018-Sep-25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We could possibly write something like
>> =

>> sprintf(wserrbuf, "winsock error %d (could not load netmsg.dll to trans=
late: error code %lu)", err, GetLastError())));
>> =

>> but I'm unconvinced that that's useful.

> Actually I think it *is* useful to do it like this, because then the
> user knows to fix the netmsg.dll problem so that they can continue to
> investigate the winsock problem.  If we don't report the secondary error
> message, how are users going to figure out how to fix the problem?

OK, I'm fine with doing it like that if people want it.

			regards, tom lane