Re: elog() proposal

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: elog() proposal
Date: 2002-02-23 00:20:11
Message-ID: 200202230020.g1N0KBQ09567@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Oh, now I get the point: you want to not pick up debug-level messages
> for translation at all. That makes sense. Okay, how about we take
> the names Bruce was proposing and make them function names:
>
> PGLog(msg, ...)
> PGError(msg, ...)
> PGCrash(msg, ...)

OK, so elog(ERROR, ...) and PGError(msg, ...) would be the same. Makes
sense. Should we consider hiding these in macros so they really still
call elog(ERROR, ...) for backward compatiblity?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-02-23 00:20:57 Re: Storage Location Patch Proposal for V7.3
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-02-22 23:38:50 Re: elog() proposal