On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> > Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> >> i like this with or without the (), but maybe we are breaking client
>> >> apps if change that
>>
>> > Ah, so you like FUNCTION.
>>
>> You can NOT change the line tag without almost certainly breaking
>> log-reading tools like pgfouine.  Even changing the content of the line
>> risks that, and for no visible gain.
>>
>> This seems like the worst form of bike-shedding to me.  This log entry
>> has been formatted this way since 7.4, and nobody has ever complained
>> about it, until you suddenly decided it was a problem.  Leave it be.
>
> I propose to add '()' because it is confusing without it.  I don't think
> many people are using the feature or we would have received suggestions
> for improvmement.  As you can see, once I posted about it, there were a
> number of people who wanted improvements.

I'm not sure if people affirmatively wanted improvements or if people
were just discussing how to change it if a change was to be made.   I
don't think you can infer that lack of suggestions for improvement
implies that no one is using it; it could equally well imply that
everyone likes it the way it is.  To be sure, I probably would have
coded it a bit differently if I'd written the functionality
originally, but I don't think it's horrible the way it is, and Tom is
right that there is something to be said for consistency.

...Robert

In response to

• Re: log_error_verbosity function display at 2010-02-11 22:47:35 from Bruce Momjian

Responses

• Re: log_error_verbosity function display at 2010-02-12 23:22:29 from Bruce Momjian

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Jeff Davis	Date: 2010-02-12 00:00:41
	Subject: Re: Confusion over Python drivers {license}
Previous:	From: Koichi Suzuki	Date: 2010-02-11 22:49:03
	Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [HACKERS] Bug on pg_lesslog