Re: elog() proposal

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: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: elog() proposal
Date: 2002-02-23 00:56:01
Message-ID: 22015.1014425761@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> OK, so elog(ERROR, ...) and PGError(msg, ...) would be the same. Makes
> sense. Should we consider hiding these in macros so they really still
> call elog(ERROR, ...) for backward compatiblity?

I would love to make them macros, but I don't know a portable way to
create macros with variable numbers of arguments. Do you feel like
writing double parens?

PGERROR((msg, ...))

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2002-02-23 00:57:54 Re: elog() proposal
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2002-02-23 00:45:01 Re: Going through email