Hi,
On 2019-08-05 13:37:50 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-08-03 at 19:14 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It seems to me that it'd be sufficient to do the annotation by
> > inserting wrapper functions, like the errparam() you suggest above.
> > If we just had errparam() choosing whether to return "..." instead of
> > its argument string, we'd have what we need, without messing with
> > the format language.
>
> I'm having trouble getting the ergonomics to work out here so that it
> can generate both a redacted and an unredacted message.
>
> If errparam() is a normal argument to errmsg(), then errparam() will be
> evaluated first. Will it return the redacted version, the unredacted
> version, or a special type that holds both?
I was thinking that it'd just store a struct ErrParam, which'd reference
the passed value and metadata like the name (for structured log
output) and redaction category. The bigger problem I see is handling
the different types of arguments - but perhaps the answer there would be
to just make the macro typesafe? Or have one for scalar values and one
for pointer types?
We could even allocate the necessary information for this on the stack,
with some macro trickery. Not sure if it's worth it, but ...
Doing something like this does however require not directly using plain
sprintf. I'm personally not bothered by that, but I'd not be surprised
if e.g. Tom saw that differently.
> If I try to use macros to force multiple evaluation (to get one
> redacted and one unredacted string), then it seems like that would
> happen for all arguments (not just errparam arguments), which would be
> bad.
Yea, multiple evaluation clearly is a no-go.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
