Kirk Wolak <wol...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 3, 2023 at 2:28 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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.
Done with pg_log_warning_detail. I ended up taking out the two spaces,
as that still felt like a modularity violation. Also, although the
extra space looks alright in English, I'm less sure about how it'd
look in another language where "warning:" and "detail:" get translated
to strings of other lengths. So the new output (before 016107478
fixed it) is
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)
regards, tom lane
