Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar as a
> replacement for the %X/%X notion.
Only if you can explain how to teach gcc what it means for elog argument
match checking. %m is a special case in that it matches up with a
longstanding glibc-ism that gcc knows about. Adding format codes of our
own invention would be problematic.
> Having to type something like "(uint32)
> (state->curptr >> 32), (uint32)state->curptr" everywhere is somewhat annoying.
If we really feel this is worth doing something about, we could invent a
formatting subroutine that converts XLogRecPtr to string (and then we
just use %s in the messages).
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-07-03 18:45:51|
|Subject: Re: Support for XLogRecPtr in expand_fmt_string?|
|Previous:||From: Pavel Stehule||Date: 2012-07-03 18:01:38|
|Subject: Re: proof concept - access to session variables on client side|