| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Hogan, James F(dot) Jr(dot)" <JHogan(at)seton(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: audit table containing Select statements submitted |
| Date: | 2006-05-13 01:03:17 |
| Message-ID: | 25005.1147482197@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Hmmm... well why don't we add log_line_suffix :)
Doesn't help; you'd also need logic in there to quote any XML tags
appearing in the message text. At that point, adding a
"log_line_suffix" is a transparent pretense of generality --- what
you might as well do is just have a full-fledged "emit the log in XML"
switch.
(I concur with Andrew's comments that this is pretty silly, unless
someone wants to go to the further work of XML-ifying the message
contents to some reasonable extent. If you are going to have to write a
parser to make sense of the message contents, it is really pretty lame
to claim that you can't cope with parsing the current log format as-is.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-13 01:05:55 | Re: DH_check return value test correct? |
| Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-05-13 01:02:26 | Re: DH_check return value test correct? |