From: | Oliver Jowett <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues |
Date: | 2005-09-16 11:55:56 |
Message-ID: | 432AB2CC.9010307@opencloud.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think it is more verbose because no FETCH is logged in this type of
> prepare/execute. The goal, I think, is for these type of queries to
> look as similar to normal PREPARE/EXECUTE and DECLARE/FETCH as possible.
I do not understand why this is a useful thing to do as part of
log_statement.
My point is that given JDBC code like this:
Statement s = connection.createStatement();
ResultSet rs = s.executeQuery("SELECT * FROM pg_proc");
while (rs.next()) {
// Process results
}
it seems that the least surprising thing to get logged is simply "SELECT
* FROM pg_proc".
I don't see how logging a synthetic PREPARE/EXECUTE/FETCH sequence (and
DECLARE, now?) is useful. They're not necessarily syntactically correct,
and they're certainly not queries that were actually sent to the
backend. I thought log_statement was meant to answer the question "what
queries were submitted to the backend?", rather than to provide a trace
of protocol-level activity..
-O
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Maier | 2005-09-16 12:25:21 | Re: when started century? PostgreSQL vs Oracle diff |
Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2005-09-16 11:47:10 | Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2005-09-16 14:24:10 | psql \x bug |
Previous Message | Oliver Jowett | 2005-09-16 11:47:10 | Re: statement logging / extended query protocol issues |