From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: several minor cleanups |
Date: | 2002-07-16 06:40:00 |
Message-ID: | 10488.1026801600@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Do we actually use the function names in a meaningful way just for error
> messages that could come from multiple places, or it is petty much a
> hodge-podge?
I don't deny that it's a hodge-podge ;-). But we do have a huge number
of fairly similar messages, for example "foo: cache lookup failed for ..."
and the presence of the function name is a big leg up in diagnosing
stuff remotely. (If you can make it happen in a debugging situation,
gdb can provide the info, but that's a luxury we don't always have.)
I am sure there are some cases where the function name could be removed
today without loss of info, because the message is unique anyway. I was
objecting to the implication that you were going to engage in a massive
removal of function names without concern for loss of debuggability...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-07-16 08:59:46 | Re: [PATCHES] CLUSTER not lose indexes |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-07-16 06:32:18 | Re: several minor cleanups |