I wrote:
>> Probably. And 'format' is even more misleading, since it implies that
>> you write a printf-like format string, which you do not. The output is
>> just the concatenation of the literal and the variable values.
Ugh. Should've read the code before pontificating ;-). The code makes
clear what is quite unclear in the docs:
/*
* Occurences of a single % are replaced by the next arguments
* external representation. Double %'s are left as is so elog()
* will also don't touch them.
*/
So "format" is appropriate, but the next sentence could use some
improvement.
regards, tom lane