On 2/26/18 01:32, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> + replaced by a prompt string. (Write <literal>%%</literal> for a
> + literal <literal>%</literal>.) Note that the prompt string will
>
> I might be thick, but I don’t see where the %% handled?
Ah, I had broken that in my submitted patch. New patch attached.
> Also, AFAICT a string
> ending with %\0 will print a literal % without requiring %% (which may be a
> perfectly fine case to allow, depending on how strict we want to be with the
> format).
That is intentional. I made the behavior match that of archive_command,
restore_command, etc. It's note quite how printf works, but we might as
well stick with what we already have.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services