Peter Eisentraut 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?
No, I'll backpatch later. -- Álvaro Herrera https://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
