Greetings, * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > On 2019-05-03 23:08:44 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > As mentioned though, it's likely to be a > > quite rare thing to run into, so you'd have to be extra unlucky to even > > hit this case and perhaps the extra code complication just isn't worth > > it. > > I think just having an actual reason for the problem would be so much > better than the current status, that I'd tackle the "oops, just about > everything is screwed, here's the reasons in order" case separately (or > just plain never).
I certainly agree with that, but if we really think it's so rare that we don't feel that it's worth worrying about then I'd say we should remove the 'else' in the 'else if', as I initially suggested, since the chances of users getting more than one is quite rare and more than two would be.. impressive, which negates the concern you raised earlier about there being a bunch of these messages that make it hard for users to reason about what is the most critical. Removing the 'else' would make it strictly less code (albeit not much, but it certainly isn't adding to the code) and would be more informative for the user who does end up having two cases happen at (or nearly) the same time. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
