Re: Support for XLogRecPtr in expand_fmt_string?

On tis, 2012-07-03 at 14:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > On tis, 2012-07-03 at 19:35 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> I wonder if we just should add a format code like %R or something similar as a 
> >> replacement for the %X/%X notion.
> 
> > Maybe just print it as a single 64-bit value from now on.
> 
> That'd be problematic also, because of the lack of standardization of
> the format code for uint64.  We could write things like
>     "message... " UINT64_FORMAT " ...more message"
> but I wonder how well the translation tools would work with that;
> and anyway it would at least double the translation effort for
> messages containing such things.

The existing uses of INT64_FORMAT and UINT64_FORMAT show how this is
done:  You print the value in a temporary buffer and use %s in the final
string.  It's not terribly pretty, but it's been done this way forever,
including in xlog code, so there shouldn't be a reason to hesitate about
the use for this particular case.