Re: Audit of logout

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Audit of logout
Date: 2014-07-02 19:43:18
Message-ID: CAHGQGwG-6=F=PmJ_j=NYQwy88m1Nk_d6Qw5LmR8wu-psjoc+fA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 11:39 PM, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/01/2014 11:55 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Hmm... I found that you had marked this proposal as "Returned with
>> Feedback". But I don't think that we reached the consensus to do
>> that. I think that it's still worth discussing this topic in this
>> CF. So I marked this as "Needs Review" again.
>>
>> If you strongly think that this proposal should be marked as
>> "Returned with Feedback", could you let me know why you think so?
>
> Returned with Feedback means, well exactly that ;-) -- the patch as
> linked to the CF page is wrong and cannot be applied the way it is
> currently. It is therefore returned to you to be fixed. It does not
> mean "Rejected" which is what you seem to infer.

I think that we should use "Waiting on Author" in that case.

"Returned with Feedback" is not "Rejected". That's right. But it basically
means that the bugfixed or revised version of the patch will NOT be
reviewed in this CF. IOW, the author has to wait for the patch review
until next CF.

> As mentioned on the CF the documentation change is flat wrong, and you
> yourself have said that you think PGC_SUSET is wrong now and
> PGC_SIGHUP should be used instead.
>
> Furthermore I doubt you have tested the change to PGC_SIGHUP because I
> did a quick test, and for some reason I haven't yet tracked down SHOW
> does not see the change to log_disconnections as you said it would
> after a reload, unlike other PGC_SIGHUP vars.

No. If we change it to PGC_SIGHUP, SHOW command does display
the changed value after a reload. It's the same behavior as other
PGC_SIGHUP parameters do. Attached patch just changes it to PGC_SIGHUP.
You can test that by using the patch.

OTOH, the current behavior, i.e., log_disconnections with PGC_BACKEND,
is that SHOW command doesn't display the changed value after a reload.

> So there is more
> thought, testing, and possibly coding needed to make this a viable change.

+1

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Make-log_disconnections-PGC_SUSET-rather-than-PGC_SI.patch text/x-diff 1.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2014-07-02 19:44:55 Re: Aggregate function API versus grouping sets
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2014-07-02 19:41:30 Re: Can simplify 'limit 1' with slow function?