I wrote:
> Cool. Now who's going to fix the cartload of warnings this has
> produced? I'm counting about 125 of them.
On further investigation, it seems that some of these warnings are
real portability issues (pointers being printed as ints, etc).
But a very considerable fraction are bogus. gcc doesn't know about
elog's "%m" extension to the standard %-format set, and it seems to
be assuming that there should be a parameter to go with the %m.
I have a feeling we will have to revert this change...
regards, tom lane