Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Patch to log usage of

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On 1/12/07, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> (2) there is already a generalized solution to this, it's called
> >> log_min_error_statement.
>
> > I didn't think of that when posting my message but Bruce seems to say
> > that we can't use it in this case.
>
> Dunno why he thinks that. But there is a point here that could use
> improvement: shouldn't log_min_error_statement be measured on the same
> scale as log_min_messages, ie, LOG is relatively high priority rather
> than relatively low priority? As the code stands, you'd have to knock
> it down to DEBUG1 in order to see the statement generating a LOG
> message. This might be harmless (since messages below log_min_messages
> won't generate log output at all), but it's surely a bit confusing.

I assume log_min_error_messages wasn't supported because it isn't listed
in the postgresql.conf file as a valid value. Let me look at adding LOG
in there in the place you suggest.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +