Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>> What's your suggestion, then?
> If there's a practical way to add the requested escape, add it to the
> text format and leave reengineering the CSV format for another day.
> Yeah, I know that's not the most beautiful solution in the world, but
> we're doing engineering here, not theology.
Well, the original patch was exactly that. But I don't agree with that
approach; I think allowing the capabilities of text and CSV logs to
diverge significantly would be a mistake. If a piece of information is
valuable enough to need a way to include it in textual log entries,
then you need a way to include it in CSV log entries too. If it's not
valuable enough to do the work to support it in CSV, then we can live
without it.
regards, tom lane