Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2013-01-11 16:28:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not very satisfied with that answer. Right now, Peter's
>> patch has added a class of bugs that never existed before 9.3, and yours
>> would add more. It might well be that those classes are empty ... but
>> *we can't know that*. I don't think that keeping a new optimization for
>> non-gcc compilers is worth that risk. Postgres is already full of
>> gcc-only optimizations, anyway.
> ISTM that ereport() already has so strange behaviour wrt evaluation of
> arguments (i.e doing it only when the message is really logged) that its
> doesn't seem to add a real additional risk.
Hm ... well, that's a point. I may be putting too much weight on the
fact that any such bug for elevel would be a new one that never existed
before. What do others think?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
