On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-09-15 at 18:27 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
>> I think the reasoning behind this patch is sound. However, I would like
>> to raise a couple of small questions:
>>
>>1) Is there a reason for the fmt string not being const c
On Sun, 2013-09-15 at 18:27 +0200, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> I think the reasoning behind this patch is sound. However, I would like
> to raise a couple of small questions:
>
>1) Is there a reason for the fmt string not being const char*? You
> changed it for pg_log_v(), but not for pg_log()
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:50:42PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The experiences with elog() and ereport() have shown that having one
> function that can return or not depending on some log level parameter
> isn't a good idea when you want to communicate well with the compiler.
> In pg_upgrade,
Hi Peter,
On 2013-09-13 04:50, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The experiences with elog() and ereport() have shown that having one
function that can return or not depending on some log level parameter
isn't a good idea when you want to communicate well with the compiler.
In pg_upgrade, there is a simil
