Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Oh, come on. One can be disabled with a GUC, has (although not good
> enough) intelligence when it switches on, the other has ... none of
> that.  Obviously performance is always a balancing act, but you'd be
> pretty pissed at anybody else regressing performance in a non-fringe
> case, and then refused responsibility.  And as I said, I'm willing to
> help.

Well, fine, let's work on it.  Did you note Alexander's comparison to
some "stb" library in the other thread?  I wonder if we could borrow
code or at least ideas from that.

            regards, tom lane