Andreas Pflug <pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> writes:
> We could have *two* handles open to the syslogger file, but that's
> probably more fragile. Making the current write_syslogger_file static
> and providing another function that converts in a local buffer and
> calles write_syslogger_file seems best.
Agreed (although actually I was thinking of preserving
write_syslogger_file as the externally visible name and renaming the
existing function to a static "write_syslogger_file_binary" or some such
--- fewer files to touch that way). Do you have time to write and check
this today? I could write it but am not in a good position to test it.
regards, tom lane
