On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
I would rather get rid of this %X/%X notation. I know we have all grown
to like it, but it's always been a workaround. We're now making the
move to simplify this whole business by saying, the WAL location is an
unsigned
On tor, 2012-07-12 at 10:13 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
One idea would be to use a macro, like this:
#define XLOGRECPTR_FMT_ARGS(recptr) (uint32) ((recptr) 32),
(uint32)
(recptr)
elog(LOG, current WAL location is %X/%X,
XLOGRECPTR_FMT_ARGS(RecPtr));
I would rather get rid of
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:34:35PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tor, 2012-07-12 at 10:13 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
One idea would be to use a macro, like this:
#define XLOGRECPTR_FMT_ARGS(recptr) (uint32) ((recptr) 32),
(uint32)
(recptr)
elog(LOG, current WAL
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us writes:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:34:35PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
I would rather get rid of this %X/%X notation.
+1
I'm for it if we can find a less messy way of dealing with the
platform-specific-format-code issue. I don't want to be plugging
On 07.07.2012 01:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On tis, 2012-07-03 at 14:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net writes:
On tis, 2012-07-03 at 19:35 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar as a
replacement for the
On tis, 2012-07-03 at 14:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On tis, 2012-07-03 at 19:35 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar
as a
replacement for the %X/%X notion.
Maybe just print it as
Hi,
I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar as a
replacement for the %X/%X notion. Having to type something like (uint32)
(state-curptr 32), (uint32)state-curptr everywhere is somewhat annoying.
Opinions?
Andres
--
Andres Freund
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
On tis, 2012-07-03 at 19:35 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar as
a
replacement for the %X/%X notion. Having to type something like (uint32)
(state-curptr 32), (uint32)state-curptr everywhere is somewhat annoying.
Maybe
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On tis, 2012-07-03 at 19:35 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar as
a
replacement for the %X/%X notion.
Maybe just print it as a single 64-bit value from now on.
That'd be problematic
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
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
On Tuesday, July 03, 2012 08:09:40 PM Tom Lane wrote:
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
