On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:28 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kirk Wolak <wol...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2023 at 8:16 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > If I comprehend the suggestion, it will label each line with a warning. > > Which implies I have 6 Warnings. > > Right, I'd forgotten that pg_log_warning() will interpose "warning:". > Attached are two more-carefully-thought-out suggestions. The easy > way is to use pg_log_warning_detail(), which produces output like > > pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items: > pg_dump: detail: FUNCTION a_f (ID 216 OID 40532) > pg_dump: detail: CONSTRAINT a_pkey (ID 3466 OID 40531) > pg_dump: detail: POST-DATA BOUNDARY (ID 3612) > pg_dump: detail: TABLE DATA a (ID 3610 OID 40525) > pg_dump: detail: PRE-DATA BOUNDARY (ID 3611) > > Alternatively, we could assemble the details by hand, as in the > second patch, producing > > pg_dump: warning: could not resolve dependency loop among these items: > FUNCTION a_f (ID 216 OID 40532) > CONSTRAINT a_pkey (ID 3466 OID 40531) > POST-DATA BOUNDARY (ID 3612) > TABLE DATA a (ID 3610 OID 40525) > PRE-DATA BOUNDARY (ID 3611) > > I'm not really sure which of these I like better. The first one > is a much simpler code change, and there is some value in labeling > the output like that. The second patch's output seems less cluttered, > but it's committing a modularity sin by embedding formatting knowledge > at the caller level. Thoughts? > Honestly the double space in front of the strings with either the Original version, or the "detail:" version is great. While I get the "Less Cluttered" version.. It "detaches" it a bit too much from the lead in, for me. Kirk...
