> On 26 Feb 2020, at 02:48, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 11:55:06PM +0000, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
>> @@ -164,11 +164,11 @@ get_major_server_version(ClusterInfo *cluster)
>> snprintf(ver_filename, sizeof(ver_filename), "%s/PG_VERSION",
>> cluster->pgdata);
>> if ((version_fd = fopen(ver_filename, "r")) == NULL)
>> - pg_fatal("could not open version file: %s\n", ver_filename);
>> + pg_fatal("could not open version file \"%s\": %m\n",
>> ver_filename);
>
> Here I think that it would be better to just use "could not open
> file" as we know that we are dealing with a version file already
> thanks to ver_filename.
Isn't that a removal of detail with very little benefit? Not everyone running
pg_upgrade will know internal filenames, and the ver_filename contains the
pgdata path as well which might provide additional clues in case this goes
wrong.
cheers ./daniel
