John, Thanks for the reply.
I disagree - my error message informs my users (who are technonerds) that the disk or db file is full, when neither of these is the case. Surely you can see that even a different constant error message in this context would be preferable? SQLITE_WRITE_FAILED or something? As I say, I'm just altering the standard error text at the moment, because it is misleading. Steve -----Original Message----- From: John Stanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 February 2006 09:58 To: sqlite-users@sqlite.org Subject: Re: [sqlite] Re: Database Disk Full The first message informs all users of the problem. The one you propose might satisfy a technonerd, but confuse the more casual user. There is however a case for writing such a detailed message to syslog or similar system log. Dave Dyer wrote: >>It is a reasonable assumption to make that the only thing which can have changed since the last write is the disk becoming full. A disk cable falling off, head crash or mechanical disk failure is not only unlikely but would crash the entire machine and make error detection and recovery unlikely so testing for it is futile. > > > It is reasonable for a program like sqlite to operate on the > assumption that other hardware and software perform as intended, and > not attempt heroic error recovery. > > On the other hand, sqlite operates in the real world, and wierd shit > happens out there. When something goes wrong, every bit of > information that is available should BE available to those trying to > clean up the mess. > > There is a huge difference, coming in in the morning after an expected > overnight run, finding it failed, and having the message > > database full > > verses having the message > > 09-feb-2006 03:13:12 database write failed, windows error code 14 for > f:\temp\vacuumtemp.txt, current file size = 10200K > >
