On 9/4/17 06:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >>> I don't like breaking the abstraction of pg_log() with the existing >>> flags with some kind of pg_debug() layer. The set of APIs present now >>> in pg_rewind for logging is nice to have, and I think that those debug >>> messages should be translated. So what about the attached? >> >> Your point about INT64_FORMAT not necessarily working with fprintf >> is an outstanding reason not to keep it like it is. I've not reviewed >> this patch in detail but I think this is basically the way to fix it. > > Actually this code goes throgh vsnprintf, not fprintf, which should be > safe, so I removed that part of the comment, and pushed.
Is there a reason this was not backpatched to 9.5? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
