From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: velog + vereport? |
Date: | 2012-10-12 14:59:39 |
Message-ID: | 22920.1350053979@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Friday, October 12, 2012 02:48:42 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Um ... and that accomplishes what? You wouldn't have velog/vereport
>> outside the backend either. If you were going to clone those in some
>> form in the external environment, you might as well clone the existing
>> elog infrastructure functions.
> The advantage is that if you something velog-ish you can have a function which
> accepts vararg arguments and forwards them.
> E.g.
> xlogreader->error(ERROR, "...", argument, argument);
Meh. I can't get excited about that, but in any case, that looks like
it would only justify a varargs version of errmsg(), not the entire
ereport infrastructure.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-10-12 15:08:37 | Re: Deprecating RULES |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-10-12 13:09:28 | Re: velog + vereport? |