On Tuesday, July 03, 2012 08:09:40 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar > > as a replacement for the %X/%X notion. > Only if you can explain how to teach gcc what it means for elog argument > match checking. %m is a special case in that it matches up with a > longstanding glibc-ism that gcc knows about. Adding format codes of our > own invention would be problematic. Ah. Yes. That kills the idea.
> > Having to type something like "(uint32) > > (state->curptr >> 32), (uint32)state->curptr" everywhere is somewhat > > annoying. > If we really feel this is worth doing something about, we could invent a > formatting subroutine that converts XLogRecPtr to string (and then we > just use %s in the messages). I think that would make memory management annoying. Using a static buffer isn't going to work very well either because its valid to pass two recptr's to elog/ereport/.... I think at that point the current state is not worth the hassle, sorry for the noise. Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
