Re: Using the %m printf format more

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
Cc: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Using the %m printf format more
Date: 2024-03-14 07:04:50
Message-ID: ZfKhkpFHjOgDlYUB@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 02:33:52PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The 0002 patch looks sensible. It would be good to fix that, otherwise it
> could have some confusing outcomes in the future.

You mean if we begin to use %m in future callers of
emit_tap_output_v(), hypothetically? That's a fair argument.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Anton A. Melnikov 2024-03-14 07:08:50 Re: May be BUG. Periodic burst growth of the checkpoint_req counter on replica.
Previous Message shveta malik 2024-03-14 07:03:57 Re: Have pg_basebackup write "dbname" in "primary_conninfo"?