On Friday, October 12, 2012 06:02:44 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > On Friday, October 12, 2012 04:59:39 PM Tom Lane wrote: > >> Meh. I can't get excited about that, but in any case, that looks like > >> it would only justify a varargs version of errmsg(), not the entire > >> ereport infrastructure. > > > > Yes, that sounds good enough. Are you vetoing that idea (in that case I > > won't pursue it) or just aren't excited about it? > > Well, I'm not excited about adding more elog.c infrastructure in advance > of having a use-case in the core code --- how would we know if it got > broken? That's not meant as an absolute veto, but I'm not terribly > comfortable about adding code speculatively. Oh, thats fine. I will submit it together with the code thats using it (next xlogreader draft).
Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
