From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Log LDAP "diagnostic messages"? |
Date: | 2017-09-13 01:28:33 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=0+yacrtrRrKnsMHiRNTkXM=uLAHX47=LHx7FWy_bn4Zw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 8:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Christoph Berg wrote:
>>>> "Diagnostic message" doesn't really mean anything, and printing
>>>> "DETAIL: Diagnostic message: <something>" seems redundant to me. Maybe
>>>> drop that prefix? It should be clear from the context that this is a
>>>> message from the LDAP layer.
>>>
>>> I think making it visible that the message comes from LDAP (rather than
>>> Postgres or anything else) is valuable. How about this?
>>>
>>> LOG: could not start LDAP TLS session: Protocol error
>>> DETAIL: LDAP diagnostics: unsupported extended operation.
>>>
>> +1, pretty neat.
Here is a new version adopting Alvaro's wording. I'll set this back
to "Needs review" status.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
ldap-diagnostic-message-v4.patch | application/octet-stream | 5.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2017-09-13 01:41:12 | Re: Supporting huge pages on Windows |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-09-13 01:11:23 | Re: [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable. |