On 11/15/15 9:50 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 16 November 2015 at 09:50, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net > <mailto:pete...@gmx.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. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
