Hi, On 2023-09-13 19:07:24 -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2023-09-14 10:33:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 01:19:38PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > +1. This errmsg is already present so it eases the translation burden as > > > well. > > > > I was thinking about doing only that on HEAD, but there is an argument > > that one could get confusing errors when dealing with snapshot imports > > on back-branches as well, and it applies down to 11 without conflicts. > > So, applied and backpatched. > > Huh. I don't think this is a good idea - and certainly not in the back > branches. The prior message made more sense, imo. The fact that the snapshot > identifier is a file is an implementation detail, no snapshot with the > identifier being exported is a user level detail. Hence that being mentioned > in the error message. > > I can see an argument for treating ENOENT different than other errors though, > and using the standard file opening error message for anything other than > ENOENT.
Oh, and given that this actually changes the error code for an invalid snapshot, I think this needs to be reverted. It's not that unlikely that there's code out there that depends on getting ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE when the snapshot doesn't exist. - Andres
