Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 7/14/15 3:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > I have been using a slightly tweaked version of this and I have found > > that the %w(80,4,4)%B thingy results in mangled formatting; > > I have since refined this to > > ... %n%n%w(0,4,4)%s%n%+b > > You might find that that works better.
Ah, yes it does, thanks. > One of the curiosities is that the built-in log formats don't appear to > be defined or easily definable in terms of the formatting language. TBH I'm not surprised. Normally the built-in formats for things grow organically in ad-hoc ways and the mini-languages for the generic mechanisms don't support all the same features. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
