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.
regards, tom lane
