Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix
Дата
Msg-id 64b4aedb-7f29-483e-9536-59dcc6b73d74@eisentraut.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Adding the extension name to EData / log_line_prefix  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 15.05.24 17:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We kind of already have something like this, for NLS.  If you look for
>> pg_bindtextdomain(TEXTDOMAIN) and ereport_domain(), this information
>> already trickles into the vicinity of the error data.  Maybe the same
>> thing could just be used for this, by wiring up the macros a bit
>> differently.
> Hmm, cute idea, but it'd only help for extensions that are
> NLS-enabled.  Which I bet is a tiny fraction of the population.
> So far as I can find, we don't even document how to set up
> TEXTDOMAIN for an extension --- you have to cargo-cult the
> macro definition from some in-core extension.

Yeah, the whole thing is a bit mysterious, and we don't need to use the 
exact mechanism we have now.

But abstractly, we should only have to specify the, uh, domain of the 
log messages once.  Whether that is used for building a message catalog 
or tagging the server log, those are just two different downstream uses 
of the same piece of information.




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GUC names in messages
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: GUC names in messages