Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog
Date
Msg-id 29990.1338904026@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We discussed this before and reached consensus not to use %m :)
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg01674.php

> :-) there goes my memory.

> That said, we're using %m in a fairly large number of places already,
> but they're mostly in the backend. I guess we're safe there.

It should only appear in elog/ereport calls; if there are any in bare
printfs, they are wrong, just as Fujii-san says.  Frontend or backend
doesn't matter.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Backup docs
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea