Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On Friday, October 12, 2012 04:59:39 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> Meh. I can't get excited about that, but in any case, that looks like >> it would only justify a varargs version of errmsg(), not the entire >> ereport infrastructure.
> Yes, that sounds good enough. Are you vetoing that idea (in that case I won't > pursue it) or just aren't excited about it? Well, I'm not excited about adding more elog.c infrastructure in advance of having a use-case in the core code --- how would we know if it got broken? That's not meant as an absolute veto, but I'm not terribly comfortable about adding code speculatively. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers