Hi, On 2026-02-11 22:13:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <[email protected]> writes: > > On 2026-02-11 20:34:50 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I agree that that isn't great code, but what I don't like about it > >> is the separation between where the format string is defined and > >> where it is used. It'd be very easy for the %-escapes to get out of > >> sync with the types of the actual parameters, and if they did, the > >> compiler would not warn you. I think we ought to try to recast this > >> into the normal usage pattern where the format is literal within the > >> errmsg call. I see the comment about avoiding code duplication, but > >> to my mind this is a terrible solution. > > > The amount of code duplication it avoids is rather substantial. > > Really? By my count it's strictly fewer lines to do it the > straightforward way. Yes, I'm counting removal of the comments > defending doing it in the convoluted way, but on the other hand the > attached patch adds quite a few extra line breaks for readability, > and still comes out 4 lines shorter. Not to mention less fragile. > I do not see a reason why the existing code is good.
I think the code after the proposed change is considerably harder to read. Greetings, Andres Freund
