Re: several minor cleanups

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: several minor cleanups
Date: 2002-07-16 06:40:00
Message-ID: 10488.1026801600@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Do we actually use the function names in a meaningful way just for error
> messages that could come from multiple places, or it is petty much a
> hodge-podge?

I don't deny that it's a hodge-podge ;-). But we do have a huge number
of fairly similar messages, for example "foo: cache lookup failed for ..."
and the presence of the function name is a big leg up in diagnosing
stuff remotely. (If you can make it happen in a debugging situation,
gdb can provide the info, but that's a luxury we don't always have.)

I am sure there are some cases where the function name could be removed
today without loss of info, because the message is unique anyway. I was
objecting to the implication that you were going to engage in a massive
removal of function names without concern for loss of debuggability...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Curt Sampson 2002-07-16 08:59:46 Re: [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-07-16 06:32:18 Re: several minor cleanups