Re: several minor cleanups
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: several minor cleanups |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10488.1026801600@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: several minor cleanups (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: several minor cleanups
|
Список | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Do we actually use the function names in a meaningful way just for error > messages that could come from multiple places, or it is petty much a > hodge-podge? I don't deny that it's a hodge-podge ;-). But we do have a huge number of fairly similar messages, for example "foo: cache lookup failed for ..." and the presence of the function name is a big leg up in diagnosing stuff remotely. (If you can make it happen in a debugging situation, gdb can provide the info, but that's a luxury we don't always have.) I am sure there are some cases where the function name could be removed today without loss of info, because the message is unique anyway. I was objecting to the implication that you were going to engage in a massive removal of function names without concern for loss of debuggability... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: