Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works

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