Re: several minor cleanups

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> Well, I think the practice of reporting C function names for
> >> user-visible error messages isn't a particularly good idea -- but if
> >> we'd like to fix that, this is only one of numerous error messages that
> >> need to be corrected.
>
> > Is there any desire for this to be done?
>
> I am *strongly* against removing those names until such time as we have
> a substitute mechanism for identifying where error messages come from
> in the source. We've talked before about making __FILE__/__LINE__ info
> available as a secondary field in error messages, as part of a general
> overhaul of error reporting ... but no one seems to want to tackle it...

Seems we could do it with gcc and ANSI compilers pretty easily by making
elog a macro and prepending __FILE__ etc in there somewhere. Did Peter
research that.

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?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026