Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-21 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andrew Dunstan escribió: > > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> I think this patch should fix it. I think win32.mak needs to be >> similarly patched. > > Don't you also need to add pgsleep.o to $(OBJS) in the win32 stanza? Hmm. Wow, that's silly. I introduced a hack in a Replicator's Makefile to avoid h

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-21 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 01:30:07AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: > On Dec 20, 2007 9:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jaime Casanova escribió: > > > > > it doesn't compile on current head on mingw 5.1 and msys 1.0.10; of > > > course, it doesn't compile on 8.2 neither in order to

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Dec 20, 2007 9:31 PM, Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jaime Casanova escribió: > > > it doesn't compile on current head on mingw 5.1 and msys 1.0.10; of > > course, it doesn't compile on 8.2 neither in order to Alvaro's contact > > to test it > > I think this patch should fix it. I

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Jaime Casanova escribió: it doesn't compile on current head on mingw 5.1 and msys 1.0.10; of course, it doesn't compile on 8.2 neither in order to Alvaro's contact to test it I think this patch should fix it. I think win32.mak needs to be similarly patched.

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Jaime Casanova escribió: > it doesn't compile on current head on mingw 5.1 and msys 1.0.10; of > course, it doesn't compile on 8.2 neither in order to Alvaro's contact > to test it I think this patch should fix it. I think win32.mak needs to be similarly patched. -- Alvaro Herrera

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Jaime Casanova escribió: > it doesn't compile on current head on mingw 5.1 and msys 1.0.10; of > course, it doesn't compile on 8.2 neither in order to Alvaro's contact > to test it Yeah, the buildfarm is failing in the same way. http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=dawn_bat&dt=

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Jaime Casanova
On Dec 20, 2007 3:29 PM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:26:46AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:50:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > 2. Do we really want thi

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:26:46AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:50:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: 2. Do we really want this to be WARNING? LOG seems a better idea, since it's not warning about a

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 07:57:23AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote: > > I'd expect the compiler to optimize away those, but I'll make it a var > > anyawy. > > It can't; it's an opaque callout to kernel32.dll, and there's nothing > that tells the optimizer when you can expect to get the same result. > T

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Trevor Talbot
On 12/20/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:39:55AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote: > > On 12/20/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ereport(WARNING, > > > (errmsg("could not open file \"%s\": %s violation", fileName, > > > (GetLa

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:11:10AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> BTW, I concur with Martijn's comment to avoid constructing phrases from >> spare parts; it creates a translation problem, and in this case you'd >> only be saving a few bytes anyway. > Ok. Ar

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:11:10AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Without looking myself, is it possible for errhint() or errdetail() to > > do something that affects GetLastError()? > > Hmm ... the macro framework is designed so that the arguments get > e

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:50:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> 2. Do we really want this to be WARNING? LOG seems a better idea, >> since it's not warning about anything the client app did wrong. > I put it as warning because I wanted to be sure the adm

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Trevor Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Without looking myself, is it possible for errhint() or errdetail() to > do something that affects GetLastError()? Hmm ... the macro framework is designed so that the arguments get evaluated before anything very interesting happens, but it might be bet

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:26:46AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:50:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> 2. Do we really want this to be WARNING? LOG seems a better idea, > >> since it's not warning about anything the client app did

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:47:33AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote: > On 12/20/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:39:55AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote: > > > On 12/20/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ereport(WARNING, > > > > (errmsg("

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Trevor Talbot escribió: > Without looking myself, is it possible for errhint() or errdetail() to > do something that affects GetLastError()? It's like errno, checking it > very far away from the call site makes me nervous. Yeah, they call gettext(), palloc/pfree/pstrdup and various StringInfo rou

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Trevor Talbot
On 12/20/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:39:55AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote: > > On 12/20/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ereport(WARNING, > > > (errmsg("could not open file \"%s\": %s violation", fileName, > > > (GetLa

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 04:39:55AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote: > On 12/20/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > ereport(WARNING, > > (errmsg("could not open file \"%s\": %s violation", fileName, > > (GetLastError() == > > ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION)?_("sharing"):_("lock")

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Trevor Talbot
On 12/20/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ereport(WARNING, > (errmsg("could not open file \"%s\": %s violation", fileName, > (GetLastError() == > ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION)?_("sharing"):_("lock")), > errdetail("Continuing to retry for 30 seconds."), >

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:32:38AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > (errmsg("could not open file \"%s\": %s violation", fileName, > (GetLastError() == > ERROR_SHARING_VIOLATION)?_("sharing"):_("lock")), > > Is _("") the proper way to get a translatable string in like that, or is > ther

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-20 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 07:50:29PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Updated version attached. Comments on the wording of the messages are also > > welcome ;-) > > Well, since you asked ;-) ... I don't particularly like this. Well, it's better to have you sa

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Updated version attached. Comments on the wording of the messages are also > welcome ;-) Well, since you asked ;-) ... I don't particularly like this. 1. Doesn't distinguish SHARING_VIOLATION from LOCK_VIOLATION. We might want to know that. 2. Do we

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:44:12PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:20:23PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, I think it would be useful to log one message if after (say) 5 > > > > seconds we still haven't been able to open the file. > > > > > >

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 04:20:23PM +0100, Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: > > > > Yeah, I think it would be useful to log one message if after (say) 5 > > > seconds we still haven't been able to open the file. > > > > Either that, or on the first run. > > Imho 1-5s is better, so that would be

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: Yes 0.1 s is imho good. Btw. m$ is talking about milliseconds (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316609) We have seen cases in the past where these locks last quite a long time. That 30s total timeout in rename and unlink was not chosen arbitrarily -

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote: > > I think not. 0.1 seconds is better. We don't want to delay a full > > second if it's just a transient thing. > > Yes 0.1 s is imho good. Btw. m$ is talking about milliseconds > (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316609) Hm, the article only mentions ERROR_SHA

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD
> > Yeah, I think it would be useful to log one message if after (say) 5 > > seconds we still haven't been able to open the file. > > Either that, or on the first run. Imho 1-5s is better, so that would be after the 10-50th try. > loop. It's supposed to loop 300 times. Yes. > > (Are we OK wi

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:23:35AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:31:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:31:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for > > >> seconds or so. > > > > > I think lo

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 01:05:00PM +, Gregory Stark wrote: > "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If your software is locking a file for that long, that software is more > > than just broken, it's horribly broken. Having a workaround against > > something that might happen once

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Gregory Stark
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If your software is locking a file for that long, that software is more > than just broken, it's horribly broken. Having a workaround against > something that might happen once or twice because of a bug in the other > software is one thing, but if it

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 10:31:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for > >> seconds or so. > > > I think looping forever is the right thing. Hav

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-19 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 10:31:59AM +, Gregory Stark wrote: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for > >>> seconds or so.

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-16 Thread Gregory Stark
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for >>> seconds or so. > >> I think looping forever is the right thing. Having a fixed timeout jus

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-15 Thread Tom Lane
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Interesting. Maybe forever is going a bit too far, but retrying for >> seconds or so. > I think looping forever is the right thing. Having a fixed timeout just means > Postgres will break sometimes instead

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-15 Thread Gregory Stark
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >>> Note that their behavior on finding SHARING_VIOLATION or LOCK_VIOLATION >>> is to retry forever until the error goes away, on the theory that the >>> antivirus/bac

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Magnus Hagander wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:55:33AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Many of these are nonsensical -- we know this is not a device, nor network access. Still there is more than one possibility, and I don't know wh

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-15 Thread Magnus Hagander
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:55:33AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Many of these are nonsensical -- we know this is not a device, nor >>> network access. Still there is more than one possibility, and I don't >>> know which ones should be really ac

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:55:33AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Many of these are nonsensical -- we know this is not a device, nor > > network access. Still there is more than one possibility, and I don't > > know which ones should be really acceptable in this con

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-14 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 09:55:33AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > So _anything_ could be EINVAL. Including the several cases that > > _dosmaperr treat as EACCES. So I'm afraid that for this experiment to > > be successful, we would have to remove not only the EINVAL c

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-12-13 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So _anything_ could be EINVAL. Including the several cases that > _dosmaperr treat as EACCES. So I'm afraid that for this experiment to > be successful, we would have to remove not only the EINVAL cases from > doserrors[], but also any other code that appears more than on

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-30 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:48:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Well, since EINVAL is the default result from _dosmaperr, and none of > >> the cases it represents are "expected", why don't we just remove all of > >> the explicit mappin

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, since EINVAL is the default result from _dosmaperr, and none of >> the cases it represents are "expected", why don't we just remove all of >> the explicit mappings to EINVAL from doserrors[]? > Well, the problematic routine is n

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Magnus Hagander
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Tom Lane wrote: (2) Do we have any live cases where we must know this? >>> Yes. This thread shows the problem: >>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-es-ayuda/2007-11/msg00354.php >>> Basically he is g

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> (2) Do we have any live cases where we must know this? > > > Yes. This thread shows the problem: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-es-ayuda/2007-11/msg00354.php > > Basically he is getting this error: > >

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> (2) Do we have any live cases where we must know this? > Yes. This thread shows the problem: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-es-ayuda/2007-11/msg00354.php > Basically he is getting this error: > 2007-11-16 14:54:16 ERROR: cou

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm still not convinced what you think the problematic situation is. > > > I believe Alvaros point is that several different GetLastError codes map > > to the same errno code, making it impossible to see the dif

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm still not convinced what you think the problematic situation is. > I believe Alvaros point is that several different GetLastError codes map > to the same errno code, making it impossible to see the difference > between those erro

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Magnus Hagander
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I think a reasonable compromise is to turn the ereport() in _dosmaperr >> to DEBUG1 instead. That way it won't clutter any log by default, and in >> the cases where we're actually interested in tracking the problematic >> situation, w

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think a reasonable compromise is to turn the ereport() in _dosmaperr > to DEBUG1 instead. That way it won't clutter any log by default, and in > the cases where we're actually interested in tracking the problematic > situation, we don't need to get hu

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> That analysis is full of holes --- FileRead and FileWrite for starters. > > > I already did. The case where they retry do not call _dosmaperr. > > What's retry got to do with it? What's displeasing me is the i

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> That analysis is full of holes --- FileRead and FileWrite for starters. > I already did. The case where they retry do not call _dosmaperr. What's retry got to do with it? What's displeasing me is the idea of LOG messages showing up

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm very concerned about that too, and think that DEBUG5 is just fine. > > > Well, the analysis was already done which says this shouldn't be a problem. > > That analysis is full of holes --- FileRead and FileWr

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm very concerned about that too, and think that DEBUG5 is just fine. > Well, the analysis was already done which says this shouldn't be a problem. That analysis is full of holes --- FileRead and FileWrite for starters.

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> Maybe. I'm concerned we might end up logging a whole lot more, for cases > >>> where it's not an actual error. > > I'm very concerned about that too, and think that DEBUG5 is just fine. Well, the analysi

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> Maybe. I'm concerned we might end up logging a whole lot more, for cases >>> where it's not an actual error. I'm very concerned about that too, and think that DEBUG5 is just fine. > Hmm, I just noticed a bug in those fprintf

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:43:30AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Maybe. I'm concerned we might end up logging a whole lot more, for cases > > > where it's not an actual error. For example, a file that doesn't exist > > > doesn't necessarily

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:43:30AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:09:47AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:24:

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:09:47AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:24:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:09:47AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:24:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:24:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:57:35AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > > Can we do something lik

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-29 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 05:20:46PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:24:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:57:35AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > Can we do something like this to report the Win32 error

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-28 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:24:26PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:57:35AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Can we do something like this to report the Win32 error code so that the > > > user has a higher chance of figuring out what's go

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-28 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:57:35AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Can we do something like this to report the Win32 error code so that the > > user has a higher chance of figuring out what's going on? > > The Windows API provides a way to get the error message ass

Re: [HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-28 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 11:57:35AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Can we do something like this to report the Win32 error code so that the > user has a higher chance of figuring out what's going on? The Windows API provides a way to get the error message associated with the code. It seems it would

[HACKERS] pgwin32_open returning EINVAL

2007-11-28 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Hi, We've seen several cases of people (running 8.1 or 8.2) that see messages like this: 2007-11-26 11:41:59 ERROR: could not open relation 1663/352369/353685: Invalid argument The platform is Win32. The problem is that pgwin32_open reduces any error code from GetLastError that's not ERROR_PA