On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 01/14/2011 05:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> It actually sounded like a pretty good idea to me. > >> If you have a format string, what do you want to do with the bits of the >> format that aren't field references? > > I was thinking of it as being strictly a field list. I don't know > whether it's really practical to borrow log_line_prefix's one-character > names for the fields (for one thing, there would need to be names for > all the existing CSV columns, not all of which equate to log_line_prefix > escapes); but in any case anything other than field references would be > disallowed. If you prefer to use a name list as the syntax that's fine > with me.
I think we're in the process of designing a manned mission to Mars to solve the problem that our shoelaces are untied. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
