"Guillaume Smet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 1/12/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (2) there is already a generalized solution to this, it's called
>> log_min_error_statement.

> I didn't think of that when posting my message but Bruce seems to say
> that we can't use it in this case.

Dunno why he thinks that.  But there is a point here that could use
improvement: shouldn't log_min_error_statement be measured on the same
scale as log_min_messages, ie, LOG is relatively high priority rather
than relatively low priority?  As the code stands, you'd have to knock
it down to DEBUG1 in order to see the statement generating a LOG
message.  This might be harmless (since messages below log_min_messages
won't generate log output at all), but it's surely a bit confusing.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to