On Friday, October 12, 2012 06:02:44 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@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
