| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | dinesh kumar <dineshkumar02(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] SQL function to report log message |
| Date: | 2015-11-16 21:05:28 |
| Message-ID: | 564A4518.5040708@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/15/15 9:50 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 16 November 2015 at 09:50, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
> <mailto:peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>> wrote:
>
>
> I haven't seen this discussed before, but I don't find the name
> pg_report_log particularly good. Why not jut pg_log?
>
>
> Sounds like a better name to me. 'report' is noise that adds nothing useful.
>
> I'd like to have this functionality.
>
> I'd prefer to omit fields if explicitly assigned to NULL. You can always
> use coalesce if you want the string 'NULL'; I agree with others here
> that the vast majority of users will want the field just omitted.
I think the problem was that you can't omit the primary message.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-16 21:43:38 | Re: [HACKERS] max_worker_processes on the standby |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-11-16 20:21:36 | Re: Question concerning XTM (eXtensible Transaction Manager API) |