From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        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: <20180925224223.GB1659@paquier.xyz>
References: <20180925154829.rbjxmmcpd5z7ueyq@alvherre.pgsql>
 <28378.1537891542@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180925224223.GB1659@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Wed, 26 Sep 2018 07:42:23 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3033.1537974599.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:09:59 -0400
Message-ID: <3034.1537974599@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 12:05:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> 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.

> +1.

OK, pushed 0001 with that adjustment.

While looking over the thread, I remembered I wanted to convert
strerror_r into a wrapper as well.  Think I'll go do that next,
because really it'd be better for snprintf.c to be calling strerror_r
not strerror.

			regards, tom lane