Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar as a
> replacement for the %X/%X notion.
Only if you can explain how to teach gcc what it means for elog argument
match checking. %m is a special case in that it matches up with a
longstanding glibc-ism that gcc knows about. Adding format codes of our
own invention would be problematic.
> Having to type something like "(uint32)
> (state->curptr >> 32), (uint32)state->curptr" everywhere is somewhat annoying.
If we really feel this is worth doing something about, we could invent a
formatting subroutine that converts XLogRecPtr to string (and then we
just use %s in the messages).
regards, tom lane
