On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: >> It contains a number of unrelated changes of %m -> %s - what's the >> motivation for those? > > %m in fprintf() is glibc extension according to man page, so it's not portable > and should not be used, I think. > > We discussed this before and reached consensus not to use %m :) > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg01674.php
:-) there goes my memory. That said, we're using %m in a fairly large number of places already, but they're mostly in the backend. I guess we're safe there. Anyway, +1 for making that change then, but I'll make it as a separate patch. >> You also removed the "safeguard" of always sleeping at least 1 second >> - should we keep some level of safeguard there, even if it's not in >> full seconds anymore? >> >> Is the -1 sent into localTimestampDifference still relevent at all? > > No because that "safeguard" would mess up with a user who sets > replication_timeout to less than one second. Though I'm not sure > whether there is really any user who wants such too short timeout.... Right - I meant we might want to adjust the safeguad. Assuming <1 sec is reasonable, maybe cap it at 100ms or so? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers