Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41128632677
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:38:38 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 98670-01-7
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:38:33 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB0E63265D
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 11:38:14 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n0RFbsLx015191;
	Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:37:54 -0500 (EST)
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery 
In-reply-to: <497F15AF.1040800@enterprisedb.com> 
References: <1218109459.4549.423.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<1220213074.4371.173.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<1905.1220895241@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<1221080797.3913.768.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<20080912181421.GI8854@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<1221245766.3913.1130.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
	<20080912193144.GJ8854@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<497F15AF.1040800@enterprisedb.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:09:51 +0200"
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:37:53 -0500
Message-ID: <15190.1233070673@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200901/2097
X-Sequence-Number: 132741

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> (replying to a very old message, since I just bumped into this in review)
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The new message is not translatable, the original was.

> Doesn't really matter since it's an elog(), not ereport().

... which is wrong in itself, since it's certainly meant as a
user-facing (or at least DBA-facing) message.  elog should generally
only be used for debugging or "can't happen" messages, not for stuff
that users are expected to see on a routine basis.

			regards, tom lane