From: Jeroen T. Vermeulen <jtv@xs4all.nl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: libpq notice processors
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:54:30 +0100
Message-ID: <20040130115430.GC19680@xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26188.1075403259@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20040129183731.GI43961@xs4all.nl>
<26188.1075403259@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> If we were going to demand a change in notice processors, I'd think the
> better approach is just to state that the notice text may or may not end
> in a newline, and the hook routine should strip or add one as it wishes.
> This is less of a change conceptually than splitting a single logical
> message across multiple calls. But I disagree with changing the API at
> all.
Fair enough.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Cc: jtv@xs4all.nl, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: libpq notice processors
In-Reply-To: <20040130115430.GC19680@xs4all.nl>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox