On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 9/4/17 06:03, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >>>> I don't like breaking the abstraction of pg_log() with the existing >>>> flags with some kind of pg_debug() layer. The set of APIs present now >>>> in pg_rewind for logging is nice to have, and I think that those debug >>>> messages should be translated. So what about the attached? >>> >>> Your point about INT64_FORMAT not necessarily working with fprintf >>> is an outstanding reason not to keep it like it is. I've not reviewed >>> this patch in detail but I think this is basically the way to fix it. >> >> Actually this code goes throgh vsnprintf, not fprintf, which should be >> safe, so I removed that part of the comment, and pushed. > > Is there a reason this was not backpatched to 9.5?
Indeed. Please note that cherry-picking the fix from 23c1f0a works just fine. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
