Re: %d in log_line_prefix doesn't work for bg/autovacuum workers

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-05-16 15:44:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But according to previous research, we don't
>> really guarantee that glibc thinks the encoding is what we think, anyway.
>> The commit messages for 54cd4f04576833abc394e131288bf3dd7dcf4806 and
>> ed437e2b27c48219a78f3504b0d05c17c2082d02 are relevant here.  The second
>> one suggests that only "%.*s" is at risk not "%*s", but I'm not really
>> convinced right now.  My recollection is that glibc will abandon
>> processing either format spec if it thinks the string is wrongly encoded.

> I've tested it here. From what it looks like it prints just fine but
> misjudges the width for padding.

Oh, good.  We can live with that.

> You propose to revert?

Not if the data gets printed.  I was afraid it wouldn't be.

(In any case, we could retain the feature and just do the padding
computations ourselves.  But I now think we don't have to.)
        regards, tom lane