Re: Support for XLogRecPtr in expand_fmt_string?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Support for XLogRecPtr in expand_fmt_string?
Date: 2012-07-06 22:03:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On tis, 2012-07-03 at 14:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > On tis, 2012-07-03 at 19:35 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar as a
> >> replacement for the %X/%X notion.
> > Maybe just print it as a single 64-bit value from now on.
> That'd be problematic also, because of the lack of standardization of
> the format code for uint64. We could write things like
> "message... " UINT64_FORMAT " ...more message"
> but I wonder how well the translation tools would work with that;
> and anyway it would at least double the translation effort for
> messages containing such things.

The existing uses of INT64_FORMAT and UINT64_FORMAT show how this is
done: You print the value in a temporary buffer and use %s in the final
string. It's not terribly pretty, but it's been done this way forever,
including in xlog code, so there shouldn't be a reason to hesitate about
the use for this particular case.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Farina 2012-07-06 22:41:41 Re: Bug tracker tool we need
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2012-07-06 21:46:03 Re: transforms