Re: several minor cleanups

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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...

Yea, if it provides value in some situations, it is not worth touching
them, _and_ requiring all the translators to hit them too. When we can
fit it completely, I will do it.

--
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