Re: logging blemishes

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>Example (log_line_prefix = '%t %q%u(at)%d %r %p %c:%l'):
> >>>>
> >>>>2005-09-19 19:16:39 EDT [unknown](at)[unknown] 6541 432f46d7.198d:1 LOG:
> >>>>connection received: host=[local] port=
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>In the case above, I rather expected %q to kick in. With the additional
> >>tests it would.
> >>
> >>It's debatable, though, and not hugely important either way, I think.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Are you saying "connection received" should honor %q? It seems it is a
> >session line, rather than a server line, no?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Maybe, the line just struck me as rather ugly. Never mind.

Now that you mention it, the log line for connections does look wrong.
"[local]" doesn't have remote port numbers like tcp does. The remote
port is the same number as the server port. I am thinking we should
suppress the 'port=' output for local connections. We properly suppress
the port number in parentheses for log_line_prefix='%r'.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073