Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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.
I have seen no other replies to this so I will not make any changes to the output format. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
